I read a fantastic blog today by T.A. Barnhart of Blue Oregon. His premise? Education is the goal; Money is just a means to that goal. And when we allow ourselves to sink to the level of making Education only about the money and the educational budget, we have lost the argument. He writes:
As progressives, the moment we let any debate become about money, we have lost. We may win the argument over the money, but we've given up the real issue. Our country was founded upon three solid goals: "Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness." The Revolution was not fought nor the Constitution crafted to found a capitalist empire where every value was reduced to market prices. One of the greatest sources of strife in the early days of our nation was on just that issue: How important would the making of money be in regard to all other national values? Whose vision would dominate: Hamilton's or Jefferson's? But even Hamilton would be shocked, I think, by the role of money in our society. There is little worth doing that does not have a price tag attached. For many things, this is fine: a day's work, household items, luxuries, the food we eat, rewards for doing something other people enjoy. Money is a convenient way for us to share our resources with each other. It is, however, an odious means by which to value people or judge our schools.
In my opinion, he has said it perfectly and sums up my frustration over the whole "education funding" argument that I have found myself in for the last year. As we enter a new era where Utah has just passed private school voucher legislation, I think his arguments hold some merit, especially for those of us on the progressive side of the aisle who don't agree that vouchers are the panacea that everyone thinks they will be. But it has passed and it's our own darn fault. Why? Because, for too long we have heard the argument that public education is broken beyond repair, that we have failing educational standards, that too many students don't succeed because we hold them back.
As I watch my own children in school, I wonder if the system is really broken, or if we just quit caring about it? While campaigning for the Utah Senate, I heard people say on many ocassions that "you can't just throw money at education to fix the problem." And that frustrated me beyond belief because that was never what I was advocating. But as I go back and read my blogs, go over my emails and my speeches - maybe that's what it sounded like I was advocating.
I talked about "funding" and "per pupil spending" so much that I began to sound like a broken record. But my biggest downfall, I think, was that I didn't talk about what my vision was for a quality education. And believe me, I have thousands of ideas - I have children in the public school system and there are lots of things that I believe we could change for the better. But instead, I made the mistake of focusing on the "financing" instead of the "fundamentals."
What is stopping us from going after every single thing that we think will benefit our children? I think there is some perceived notion of a "big brother" who says we cannot "do" whatever it is we think needs to be "done" and so therefore we just sit and whine about the problems with public education.
So, I don't think the problem lies so much within the system but within our attitude. We keep saying that the problem is about money. Don't get me wrong - our teachers are grossly underpaid in Utah (even with the recent salary increase granted by the legislature) and our per pupil spending isn't near where it should be. That all deserves discussion. But if some parents are willing to spend upwards of $8000 a year per student for the private education of their children, then the issue is not about money. The issue is that we have failed to talk about quality education. Advocates of school choice are not upset about paying for public education - they are upset because they *perceive* that they are paying for something that they feel isn't working or effective. As Barnhart states, "I think we must make our discussions about education be about education, not the funding of education. We'll decide what a quality education is, what each child needs, what the future is demanding that kids learn -- and then we'll write a damn check to pay for it. " Why is this so hard for us to figure out? I truly believe that if we changed our focus away from the money, we would get the education system that we all want. Because it's not about money. It's about the best education we can provide for our children.
Finally, I think Bernart's final premise sums it up: He says:
"If we care about education, we'll set aside the money issues. We'll focus instead on what really matters: the kids, the teachers, the curriculum, the outcomes. We'll focus on education, not a stinking budget. Jesus said, in one of his many treatises on democratic theory, "For where your treasure is, there your heart will be also." What do we treasure, and what does that say about our hearts -- our humanity? Do we treasure the education we give our children, or do we value what it takes from our wallets?"
38 comments:
One of the major tenets of liberalism is the readiness to sacrifice the rights and freedoms of the individual for the good of the state.
That’s why some liberals oppose school choice. Everyone recognizes that giving a kid in a failing public school the option to attend a private school is better for that kid. However, liberals argue that if we allow kids the right to pick their school, the result will be a wholesale abandonment of the public school monopoly. (Of course, why liberals think public schools are so inferior an option that they can’t compete with private schools is another matter altogether.) These opponents of vouchers wring their hands and cry that vouchers will “weaken” public schools by “taking dollars out” or permitting private schools to “cherry pick” the best students.
All of these concerns are unfounded. The Left can’t understand that by permitting individuals the freedom to choose their school, new pressures are created that will improve all schools—including the public schools that are seemingly going to be abandoned.
A new study of the impact of competition in Florida from the Manhattan Institute reinforces this point. The state of Florida’s A+ program forces students to take a standardized test, and then grades schools based on student performance. Students in schools that receive a failing “F” grade for any two years in a four year period become eligible for a school voucher.
In When Schools Compete: The Effect of Vouchers on Florida Public School Achievement, Dr. Jay Greene and Marcus Winters found that Florida public schools improved with this competition, and that the public schools facing failing grades improved the most. Of course, the students given vouchers are better off—but the failing schools these students can now leave are also performing better! It’s exactly the opposite of the liberal gloom and doom prediction. (the full report is available here) Florida Governor Jeb Bush is a national leader on education competition, and his vision of education competition is starting to bear fruit in the sunshine state.
Of course, facts and evidence will never be enough to convince the teachers’ unions that education competition is a good thing. For far too long, the public schools monopolies have been run as a jobs program first, with education only as the secondary mission. Simply look at the ratio of actual classroom educators to support staff in the United States. In the vast majority of school districts, there are more employees not teaching than teaching. Vouchers and competition brings competitive pressure, which over time will produce excellence. That’s supported by the latest evidence from Florida, and a reason why we should support additional experiments in school choice.
Anonymous, do you have a name?
There is nothing wrong with a parent wanting to choose a private school -- that is an option and will always be an option in the good ole US of A. But I take issue with those who want to dump the public school system altogether, without doing anything or putting any effort toward making it better. Teachers unions aside, what is missing in a public school that deems it necessary for people to jump ship?
And, this is not a liberal vs. conservative discussion. I am truly trying to understand the perceived problems.
Where I live, the UEA and NEA doesn't seem to have a great big voice running the show - we have a very active and involved PTA and a very high level of activity from parents. From where I sit, it appears taht the Iron county school district runs things, not the unions.
Help me understand.
Emily,
It’s a simple matter of choice and freedom.
You believe in the re-distribution of wealth via our tax dollars for education.
I believe that parents know better than school officials on how those tax dollars should be spent – hence vouchers.
For example, if we put with every child a voucher, what ever school we send that child too (public or private) that school gets the money that is ear marked for that child.
That way, we can apply free market methods to our educational systems, successful schools will prosper, unsuccessful schools (and teachers) will be done away with and hence, the free market system works and parents have a greater choice in education and how their tax dollars are spent.
As for my name, just call me an old fashioned democrat who votes.
Dear Old Fashioned Democrat Who Votes:
Yes, I suppose that to a degree, I believe in the redistribution of wealth to provide a quality education system. I suppose the fundamental difference between you and I is that I *believe* it is the responsibility for a gov't to provide a compulsory education for all children, because I believe that being educated is a right. There are some children who will never be rocket scientists, but at least we can teach them how to read. And those who will excel beyond most other children deserve to do just that.
However, I am going to have a difficult time getting my brain around the whole "freedom of choice" argument, mostly because in my whole lifetime, private school has been out of my reach, and where I live now, there are no private schools for my children. The best we've got is a system where parents and administrators are working together to make sure our kids get the best education we can give them. I don't believe we have to "compete" in order decide what they need - we just have to set our sights as high as we can and go for it. This is where I think we fall down - we tend to "settle" instead of shoot for the stars. And that is where the "school choice" folks jump in and get us, every time - because they say we need competition... I say we need to aim higher.
Maybe I'm incredibly idealistic, I don't know. I just wish we had a system where it could be all things to all people.
Where is my choice? I have always wanted a swimming pool, but I have been forced to use our public community pool because I decided to teach school.
I have never had any children of my own, but I have been taxed just the same and I have never doubted that my tax dollars were not being put to good use.
Now the State of Utah has decided that parents know more than professional educators, and that my tax dollars should follow their child to PRIVATE schools.
Lets be frank; I want a pool voucher to help me pay for my private pool!
There has always been choice. When you send your children to Private school you have made a choice. Vouchers are not about choice, they are about a bunch of elitist snobs who could care less about anyone else's child.
"Maybe I'm incredibly idealistic, I don't know. I just wish we had a system where it could be all things to all people."
Well Emily there's no maybe about it, you are incredibly idealistic.
As for your second statement, I think that you have answered your own question as to why there is a hunger for school vouchers; pragmatically speaking most people know that one size doesn't fit all and that's how public education tends to act - as a one size fits all monopoly.
When leaning left, liberals tend to be against monopolies in the private sector but for them in the public sector. Conservatives exhibit the opposite disparity of logic.
Monopolies, whether it be American Telephone & Telegraph or your local school district tend to drift toward a comfortable status quo. That's why they're bad for consumers and that's why they're bad for students and their parents.
It's near impossible to get a customized education for an individual student in a public school. The same is not true of private schools. That's the logic of competition; If you don't like this sandbox you can pick up your marbles and play in another. Public schools need to offer choice within the system in order to be viewed as a modern value.
Does this mean that the public school system is broken? No, it just means it's ridiculous to believe you can shove all children into the same hole and not find a couple of square pegs.
If public education wanted to solidify its position in the modern American psyche it would understand that we are witnessing the birth of mass customization as a standard of living and would try and tailor its services to all but the most egregious outliers.
Steve -
Very well said
Steve -
:-) Yes, I am the first to admit that I'm idealistic, and perhaps what you've said here is *exactly* what I'm trying to get at.
IF the public school system could create more choices within its system, we would *really* have school choice. Do you know how much I would *love* to customize the education of each of my children? Why aren't we advocating this, why aren't we fighting for this? Why did we get stuck on vouchers?
I don't think it *has* to be a "one size fits all" system, yet that's what we have, and that is my frustration.
As for "choice" - I can almost guarantee that there will be no private school option for my son (who is a freshman in high school) before he leaves the school system. And my 9 year old - well, the option may present itself, but will it be the option that I want (I just don't see private schools cropping up all over Iron county in the next 8 years)... and if it *does* turn out to be the right thing for my son, will my family be able to afford private school tuition on my husband's salary? Unanswered questions, for sure.
This is why I want to bang my head against a wall whenever I start thinking about this whole dilemma.
Why did we get stuck with vouchers? Because systems, like people, inherently protect themselves first.
The power brokers within education try to frame the debate in terms of dollars; If we had more money we'd have a better system.
I think most people reject that argument, as you have in your initial post, because you realize what that line of thinking translates to is - If we just had more we'd have, more.
Your anguish acknowledges that the status quo on steroids isn't really a better service, it's just a bigger service.
The endorsement of vouchers is a reaction to that thinking. We don't want more of the same, we want something else. Something different.
So how do we get the system itself to change? I don't know. But I hope that every union leader, every principal, every teacher takes note that people are looking for are innovative ideas in education. Maybe this piece of legislation is what they needed as a catalyst for introspection and real improvement from within.
That's what vouchers are really about.
I need to agree with Steve, more money is not the answer.
Parents are frustrated.
I see how classes are taught at the pace of slowest students, rather than making classes competitive and allowing only those who are really going to learn something to prosper.
It seems we have to make learning fun; learning is not fun folks, its work.
Do we need to pass children just to make them feel good? It happens all the time.
Look at the amount of remedial education at colleges and universities.
Look at the travesty of grade inflation.
Kant said it best when it comes to education,”…there are three types of students, the smart ones, the average ones and the dumb ones. The smart ones will figure it out for themselves, the dumb ones are beyond help…the average ones truly deserve the teachers’ attention”
In my classroom, that is the philosophy that I follow … and if a child fails, so be it.
Look at how schools were run in the 1920’s and the 1930’s, high standards and strict if not harsh discipline. We could all learn something from that.
“Maybe I'm incredibly idealistic, I don't know. I just wish we had a system where it could be all things to all people.”
Oh Emily, you are idealistic.
Can stores, auto dealerships, universities, dr’s offices, supermarkets, barbershops, hospitals…I could go on, are these all things to all people – No, that is why we have a consumers market place.
Parents want a market place for schools too. I like Anon’s idea that every child have a voucher that they can use at either a public or private school, and which ever school they choose gets the money for that child. What a novel concept, parents shopping around for the best product for their child, whether that school be public or private / charter or parochial.
This is breath fresh air compared to the status quote that public education has. By opposing vouchers public schools, the public education system isn’t looking out for children; it is looking out for itself.
I wish teachers would truly listen to parents about their concerns and frustrations with schools today;
Rather than having UEA weekend, let’s have parents and teacher meet weekend.
Rather than having a bureaucracy decide on tenure, lets have parents vote on tenure for teachers.
Rather than govt deciding how tax dollars should be spent, lets empower parents to spend their tax dollars on a school that they really believe their child will benefit from.
Let’s leave the NEA, the UEA out of policy making for our children.
"Now the State of Utah has decided that parents know more than professional educators, and that my tax dollars should follow their child to PRIVATE schools. "
You mistakenly think you know more than parents ... maybe thats why parents want vouchers, because of an attitude like that.
Hey, I started this post off saying "it's not about money" -- so I agree there. I think we can all agree there.
Really, the basis of this whole rant of mine is that if we want public education to work, we really have to make a commitment to make it WORK. It's not about money, it's about getting down in the trenches and making it work with hard choices and commitment.
And those of us who advocate for the best public schools need to do THAT... continue to advocate for public schools, but quit making the argument about money. We're stuck in a mindset that it is *only* about the money.. and until we get off that kick we're not going to improve like we want to.
Emily,
Ultimatly it's about money...the tool that greases the wheel that educates our children.
Yes, but when the argument is ONLY about money we've lost it. Of course money greases the wheels and makes it all happen. When my kid needs new shoes, I figure out how to pay for it. I don't commiserate all day because I don't have money to buy him some shoes, I re-adjust my budget and buy the damn shoes.
well, the legilature adjusted its budget to give us vouchers.
I decided shortly after high school that I did not want my children going to public schools before 9th grade. Even then, I would let them make the choice as to how their education would proceed at that point. Let me tell you why.
I went to junior high school in an affluent area. Teachers all tried to compete to get in there, many of the kids took honors classes and you never heard about drug deals, gang fights or anything of that nature. Then, in the second year of the school, we had our first shooting. The kids involved were from good families. This neighborhood was the wealthiest ZIP code in town at the time. Yet, we still couldn't escape that kind of danger.
A scared kid did a stupid thing to a bully by shooting him with a .22 pistol. The guy he shot was a notorious bully, the kind of guy that we all knew had it coming some day. Their good upbringing, good neighborhood and good faculty couldn't stop it. Had the administrators pulled the bully aside and given him a "come to Jesus" meeting, that might have scared him out of pushing that kid too far. Be it out of fear from the parents or a mental case of "not my job" we will never know. What I know, though, is that bully should've been sitting in a dean's office getting his rear end chewed off every day until he knocked it off.
Private schools have no problem pulling a troublemaker aside and giving him a whatfor. They won't have any qualms about kicking him out of the school. They know that cheesing off parents by making them feel un-empowered is a good way to go out of business. If a public school administrator tried something like that, they'd likely get sued or reprimanded so fast it'd make your head spin. Now why is that?
Public schools are addicted to the feds and the state for money. That money comes with mandates. They can't get rid of students that cause nothing but trouble. They can't properly reprimand him for being a blight on their school. They can't do their job through the mountains of red tape heaped upon them. Both Republicans and Democrats are responsible for this and I don't expect either of them to fix it no matter how many of us demand more local control. Our "outta be a law" mentality has killed our schools and made private schools necessary.
For every law that a lawmaker wants to overturn, there are three to take its place. The regulatory nightmare is what drives parents and future parents alike to consider alternatives. Since I am not getting the quality of product that I demand for my tax dollars, I wouldn't mind some of them back to make sure my kids get educated the way I want be it a voucher, tax credit or whatever.
A young man named David took a home made magazine to Olympus High School. In his magazine was a comic that depicted a kid who wanted to make a call be he only had a dime.
When he realized that he didn't have enough money to make his call David's made up creation pulled out a gun and said "Everyone Must Die!"
David was kicked out of Olympus High that very day.
Violence can happen anywhere, and public schools not only react, but they can over react as well.
David wouldn't hurt a fly, and I believe that Private Schools that except public money must be open for all students.
Fair is fair.
First anonymous--if one needs a government welfare voucher to tell them they have a "choice" and "freedom" on how their child is educated, maybe he or she needs to work a little harder. I would say someone like Emily already knows that she has "choice" and "freedom" already in how her children are educated--a simple thing called parenting.
And citing Manhattan Studies about vouchers or education is like citing ACLU studies about religion or anti-Mormons about the LDS Church.
Next anonymous--I don't have children either. I have to ask--since voucher money is being paid with OUR tax dollars--where is our freedom of "choice" on how and where it is spent?
I disagree with your statement on professional educators-- parents do know about their children than teachers do--nonetheless, they shouldn't need a voucher to tell them that.
Steve--what about the "monopoly" of say our state government? Maybe we could apply vouchers to them--say giving other candidates equivalent money that the monopoly uses for elections. What about the "monopoly" of the LDS Church? Imagine if the voucher people applied it to them. If I remember right, you DO have to go to the ward where your boundary is. Shouldn't we have the freedom to go to a ward that fits our lifestyle and meets our needs?
Shouldn't those of us paying for the vouchers be able to choose the schools and individuals to whom our money will go?
jesse--to a degree you are right--but that's why I advocate for less state and federal government micromanaging of schools and less regulation
Every year--including this one--it seems like at least some representatives' bills try to be the next great thing to solve education's "woes."
What it should be up to is the attitudes and efforts of people working together.
Emily, why can't you move up here to the Salt Lake Valley? We sure need you here.
You provide the best approach around--it's US who decide our own lives through our own efforts.
And yes, vouchers are just as much about money and politics as anything else is. If they were about "choice," then the voucher people would work just as hard to help public schools succeed, not disparage them.
What this has to be about and that I have stated over and over again--is attitude, working together, and effort. WE need to look for solutions rather than just complain and work for those. That's the approach I am taking in my own area.
As a conservative, I believe that there are ways we can work together to improve public education--not through some big government solution like the two liberal extremes of teacher unions or vouchers, but through community efforts. If we all put forth our best efforts to make a difference, you would see miraculous things happen.
A little time doesn't cost tax money, but it sure can help out a lot and possibly save some in the process.
We should not need vouchers, legislative bills, and so on. We need PEOPLE.
Hello, Tim the teacher -
Thank you for all of that. You are right - vouchers *are* about politics and money, and I agree with you that if it was truly about "choice" we'd all work harder to make public schools the absolute best thing around.
And with that -- I need to get my son of to school. We've been working on a science project and he can't wait to share it with his teacher.
Everyone, have a great Tuesday.
The monopoly bargument just doesn't work.
It's stupid!
Whoopsy,
Argument. See what happenw when you go to private schools!
I'm still confused as to why voucher proponents think that having a voucher is giving them "choice". Choice has always been around and it will always be there. NO ONE is stopping parents in sending their children to a private school. It is all about money and power to a few of the affluent. Utahns now have to pay for the 3% who are whining that they don't have a "choice".
Two other points:
UEA is an association, not a true union. They should be a union and they should stand up for the vastly underpaid teachers in this state.
Second, the word monopoly can not apply to public education. It is a political tool to divide voters and convince people that vouchers are the only way to combat the soj-called "monopoly". The true definition of monopoly applies to the corporate world, not education. If education was a true monopoly, they would have control of their own revenue. But, we all know that the Legislature controls what goes into our schools. Therefore, if we want to complain about public education, we need start looking at our elected lawmakers, not at the teachers or the unions.
Richard,
You just don't get it.
Old Fashioned Democrat Who Votes just don't get it.
anon:
It's simple economics;
but apparently you don't get it.
Sorry, but you are wrong on the "choice" arguement.
Richard,
Why am I wrong?
To be fair, Richard, it is paying for people to get OUT of the neighborhood school system for the time being, though when it does get to the NEXT year, then we are paying for some who aren't supported by tax dollars.
Do you think monopoly applies to the Utah legislature? I wonder. :)
As for more competition--it seems to me I see more competition on who can get bigger than the other guy nowadays. Maybe those who advocate that could tell us some "innovative" ways we could get our manufacturing base back without shipping it off to somewhere else or maybe how we can get health care costs to go down or maybe how to reduce our huge trade deficits or how to reduce our dependence on foreign oil and produce it more cheaply. After all, we want to do education cheaper so they should tell us how how THEY are making things like the above cheaper for the rest of us.
What we still need is less state and federal government micromanagement and more local control. I think we can even give some local cities more input and policy making ability in the big districts without having to split up so much. It would just take people putting their heads together to figure it out.
I'm not saying my approaches work best for everyone--working together, bringing in the community, involving people, maintaining open communication, realizing that people aren't perfect and make mistakes, expect students to learn and make progress and praise them when they do, but also maintain humor and fun along the way, and so on. It works for me in my classroom.
My new approach is thus--when I see a problem I will go about figuring out a way to solve that--through community means without involving taxpayer funds. The "community" might just be me doing it myself in some cases, but so be it.
Richard DOES bring up a good point though--the Utah legislators have been the big policy makers on education for at least the past two decades.
AND I have seen many a fine teacher, student, or parent in the "failing" system. I see miracles in my own class every day. Sometimes I find that voucher supporters don't want to hear them--almost like they believe that nothing good can come out of education.
But then again, we should relish and promote such positive stories, not just the negative things. I often like to apply "grade school solutions" to problems--meaning that I try to find a solution to a minor problem in five minutes or less like young grade school children do (and then become friends again).
If we have to blame everything on one entity, to me that does not make one any more conservative.
But then again, it depends on our attitudes and efforts a lot too. Maybe instead of disparaging the other guy, we can look in the mirror and ask what we can do to help things out.
Regardless of what happens with vouchers, THAT will be my approach and not just for my school, but for my community.
Tim the teacher said: "Sometimes I find that voucher supporters don't want to hear them--almost like they believe that nothing good can come out of education."
I agree with this statement. I know "voucher supporters" here in Southern Utah who have kids in the public school system and who will have no chance of ever using a voucher (their kids are in high school) ... when I ask them why they are "pro voucher" it is because they honestly believe that there is nothing that can be done with public education.
I hate the defeatist attitude... and it troubles me to hear a parent complain about the public school system (where their kids are straight A students, by the way) - and so to me, the argument makes no sense. Their kids are excelling in the system, they have no private schools to send them to - and yet they believe that public school sucks and that their kids are not getting every advantage out of it. Huh??
My conclusion is this: I think the voucher argument for many is just there for the sake of being against public education because that's what some talking head said was the cool thing to do. You know, the "complaint du jour."
Emily,
You are so off base it’s insulting.
We are not whining or complaining for the fun it, we are advocating change for the betterment of our children. What could be more important than that?
You wonder why you lost at your bid for public office, it is because you don’t listen, and you dismiss others who disagree with as being uninformed or ignorant. Maybe if you listened to what voters where really saying your words might have an impact; even in you’re your own blog you admit to not getting out your message and not being understood.
Of course you were misunderstood, because you were uninformed and refused to listen to all sides on an issue.
The next time someone is passionate enough to respond to your ramblings here on this blog remember that they are not doing it to whine, they are doing it because they feel they are making a difference.
Anonymous #Last,
Clearly you have misunderstood my comments ... I was not calling all "pro-voucher" advocates whiners. I admit that my last comment was snarky, but in my defense I was really only referring to some very dear friends here in Cedar City who have stated that they are pro-voucher and want to throw out the public school system *even though* their kids are excelling under the very system that they think is broken. That doesn't make sense to me. If it was broken, wouldn't their kids be illiterate? I have talked to these people at length regarding the voucher question... For this particular family I am referring to, I really believe that they are only PRO VOUCHER because it is what they hear on Glen Beck and other right wing radio programs... they have heard and quoted him that "privatizing education" is going to solve the problem. From my own observation, I do not believe that these people have thought it through very deeply, and I would compare it to the far left side where some people are anti-war just because it is the "cool thing" to be, or they "hate Bush" because that's what everyone else is doing.
My own belief is that people should be more thoughtful than that. This is not to say that there aren't thoughtful Bush-haters, or thoughtful anti-war protesters. And I do know that there are those who truly believe that the voucher system is going to solve our education problems. Obviously I disagree. But that doesn't mean I don't appreciate the perspective or don't listen to it.
As for your being offended, I am sorry that I have come off that way. I appreciate and respect many different points of view. The whole purpose for writing anything at all is to try to have a greater understanding for where people are coming from.
As far as losing the race for the Utah Senate... I don't know how to respond to your comments. If you would identify yourself, or tell me how I didn't listen to YOU and your concerns, it would be easier to address the question. I have *never* been accused of not listening, of not trying to understand all sides of an issue. My whole campaign was based on "listening" ... and so unless you can give me a specific example where I didn't listen to someone, I don't really know how to answer.
This blog entry was intended to ask the question... "what can we do to improve public education without bringing the conversation back to money" - I wanted to hear *real* ideas to solve perceived problems. But the argument always turns into a fight - the pro-vouchers vs. the anti-vouchers. This is why we're stuck. We're not addressing the real problem nor are we getting creative about how to get the very best possible product for our kids.
So, if that means I am not listening and that I am not trying to understand, then so be it.
However, I will continue to ask the question until someone HEARS the question. If you would like to answer, please do -- but don't just be offended without trying to understand where I am coming from.
I honestly believe that we are all looking for the same thing. I would much rather that we find common ground and work from there.
If the UEA thought they had a decent court case they'd not waste time and energy with a trying to get it on a ballot.
Again - here we go. Anti-UEA vs. pro-Public-education.
Doesn't anybody have anything original to say?
Wow, anonymous...cool your jets. I just read your post and you said that Emily didn't win because she wasn't listening... YOU couldn't be more wrong. Emily didn't win the Utah senate race because she isn't a Republican. Iron County hasn't even had a Democrat run for office in over 20 years. That fact alone is enough for me to know that she's incredibly brave.
Also, I have re-read all of these messages here and I think it is YOU who is not listening. Emily clearly wants parents to be involved in their kids education and to make choices about what is best for them. I think that's more than what a lot of parents do.
Whether or not your pro-voucher or not, studies have shown again and again that the parents who are involved in their childrens lives end up having the kids who succeed in school, whether the school be public or private.
Emily didn't lose her race because SHE didn't listen. I don't think enough people wanted to listen to anybody -- because had they listened to her opponent, they wouldn't have voted for him.
The voucher theory will prove itself to be the demise of this great country. This country became great once there was universal compulsory education in every state, starting in 1918. That is when we took off as a nation. America is great because it is a classless society, not an elitist society with a bunch of children schooled in elitist private scools.
Post a Comment