In particular, the Seattle Times editorial writer should read this post. (And for background, she may want to read my own, earlier post on the program that the Obama administration and the Democrats in Congress have decided to destroy. And she should very definitely listen to the children in the video. Every time I watch it, I am touched.)
Samples from Williams' post:
But over the last week I find myself in a fury.
The cause of my upset is watching the key civil rights issue of this generation — improving big city public school education — get tossed overboard by political gamesmanship. If there is one goal that deserves to be held above day-to-day partisanship and pettiness of ordinary politics it is the effort to end the scandalous poor level of academic achievement and abysmally high drop-out rates for America's black and Hispanic students.
. . .
By going along with Secretary Duncan's plan to hollow out the D.C. voucher program this president, who has spoken so passionately about the importance of education, is playing rank politics with the education of poor children. It is an outrage.
Or should be an outrage, if you care about education, especially the education of poor kids, trapped in ineffective urban schools.
Varner should read this because she tells us that she cares about education. But, like many other "mainstream" journalists, she has been too much of a partisan to look at which politicians have worked to reform education, and which politicians have worked to defeat reforms. (I should add, for the benefit of some, that paying the same people more money to do the same things is not usually considered reform.) If she really cares about education — and I believe she does — she should take the time to look hard at the evidence, starting with Juan Williams' post.
(For the record: I am not in favor of vouchers as a general solution to our educational problems, but I think that they are appropriate where public schools have failed massively. The public schools in the District of Columbia have not been a great success — which may explain why neither Obama nor Secretary Duncan want their children to attend those schools.
Since this post is about education, I will give Ms. Varner a homework assignment: Our last three presidents all worked on education reform before they became president, Clinton and Bush as governors, and Obama as head of the Chicago Annenberg Challenge. Did the efforts of any of the three improve results, as measured by standard test scores?
If Ms. Varner is willing to do that homework, she will learn something.)
Posted by Jim Miller at April 21, 2009 11:29 AM | Email ThisMs Varner is just another ideologue who is blind to the failure of public eduction. She appears to be content to give unwarranted praise for minimal improvements in public schools while excusing the progressive dumbing down of curricula that produces semi-literate high school graduates. She is part of the education problem, rather than a constructive influence for imporvement.
Posted by: Paddy on April 21, 2009 12:34 PMThey kill two birds with one stone here. They ensure that their own kids grow up to be captains of the welfare state, and that there is a vast underclass to be cared for. When the Detroit school system as a 78% drop-out rate, that's a lot of broken lives, requiring lots of social workers and counsellors to try to mend.
Posted by: travis t on April 21, 2009 03:01 PMOn the one hand, he dismantles a voucher program designed to give those inner city DC kids willing to work hard, a real shot at the dream. On the other hand, he wouldn't dare send his own daughters to DC public schools.
Children are expendable, but Unions get first priority. Change we can believe in.
Posted by: Jeff B. on April 21, 2009 09:02 PMIt's not about the kids it's about power.
Posted by: G Jiggy on April 22, 2009 11:15 AM*Sigh* We now live in a patronage-oligarchy. Regardless of party, those in power are there because of the patronage of a few power structures (e.g. unions, corporations, churches, etc). You have to be a champion for one of those organizations to secure power and to hold it. In this case, the Democrats are securing the patronage of the NEA once again.
On a bit of a left turn...don't you guys think it is time we repealed the 17th amendment? Before the 17th amendment, the senate was full of senators from states. Now, after the 17th amendment, the senate is full of senators from the AFL-CIO, senators from the NRA, senators from NARAL, senators from the Sierra Club, senators from Exxon-Mobil, senators from Microsoft, senators from Goldman-Sachs and JP Morgan, senators from...well, you get the idea. Before we had the 17th amendment, the state governments where the larges special interests at the federal level. Now it is whomever pays the most.
It is this skew in political pressure that has led to unconstitutional shit like McCain-Feingold. They recognize the problem, but haven't quite found the ailment. It is also the reason that we're now seeing states putting forth 10th amendment bills to assert their state's rights.
Now, the reason we passed the 17th was to end the perceived corruption at the state level that resulted in the appointments of senators who represented powerful business interests rather than the state's interests. I think repealing the 17th would again shift the corruption back to the state level, but at least we know where those people live.
I'm really getting tired of Congress doing everything they can't to avoid following the will of the everyday citizen.
Posted by: blindman on April 23, 2009 12:35 AMIf you go against the party line you are fair game and lefties will let their inner bigot come tumbling out. Remember what happend when the gay marriage prop was defeated with the help of the black vote in California?
Posted by: travis t on April 23, 2009 02:59 AM