The hypocrisy of opponents of school choice schemes has never been a big secret. But rarely has that quality been so brazenly exhibited as by Vincent Giordano, the head of the New Jersey Education Association, in a recent interview on New Jersey public television. When asked why he opposes giving poor parents the same opportunity to take their kids out of failing public schools and into successful private or religious institutions the wealthy have, the teachers union boss, who makes more than half a million in salary and other compensation, replied: “Life’s not always fair.”
Giordano, who has been a major antagonist of New Jersey Governor Chris Christie, has been doing his best to obstruct education reform in the Garden State. And, like all teachers union officials, he is ready to fight to the death to prevent school choice plans that would allow parents to use the money the state allocates to educate their kids to purchase better education than is often provided in failing public schools. But perhaps it is unfair to single out Giordano as he is no more of a hypocrite on this matter than President Obama.
Obama, it should be recalled, did his best to end a successful experiment in school choice in the District of Columbia that allowed some poor children to escape the collapsing D.C. public education system and go to elite private schools like the Sidwell Friends School. Of course, Sidwell happens to be good enough for the president’s two daughters but not for the poor.
Obama and his teachers union allies are determined to defend the public school monopoly at all costs and oppose all efforts to allow parents to use state aid to educate as they think best. Their top down model suits the unions and their liberal political allies but not the nation’s children. Their answer to the needs of the poor who are victimized by failing public schools is always a form of the “life’s not always fair” answer given by Giordano even when it is not uttered with such shamelessness.
The question that must be put to them remains the same that advocates of choice have been asking for decades: Are not the children of the poor made in the image of God the same as that of the wealthy? And if so, how dare our nation’s leaders and educators value their liberal ideological prejudices in favor of state schools over the best interests of the children?
That "the poor…are victimized by failing public schools" is exactly what left-wing ideologues believe. Anthropomorphizing schools and blaming teachers and Unions for the cultural pathologies that are rampant in the Ghetto,which destroy the schools,is pure scapegoating.Far too many pupils in "lousy schools" enter schools with parent approved attitudes of extreme hostility towards teachers&social workers who are viewed as an extension of the hated police-not to mention a similarly ingrained rejection of the very idea of discipline("They can't hit me ,so I can do anything I want"),and a militantly negative attitude toward the curriculum………Charter schools in New York have shown themselves to play fast and loose with statistics,and to be masters of public relations- those,that is, that haven't been cited for poor academics. Giordano may be as crass as Christie,but Mr. Tobin has taken the easy way out on this one.Ideological prejudices can cut both ways.
What a strange, strange story to be spotlighted by the likes of Huffington Post. It is revealing in that it actually criticizes a union leader and brings into question the validity of the president's claims of concern for the poor when he jerks a program that would allow poor parents to have the real freedom of choice. Could it be that the spell placed on Democrats is suddenly dissolving? Could this mean in turn that we might have a true middle ground on which to debate without the imposition of race cards, agendas and all that has plagued our nations since Clinton? Only time will tell.
Tax money should go to public schools. If public schools are failing children it is because irresponsible parents refuse to exercise their right to vote. We have been gambling our childrens futures away trusting high dollar propaganda campaigns for too long. The argument I am hearing as a retired grandfather is the exact same argument that was going on when I was in elementary school. My parents scrimped and saved when ever they could to put me in Catholic school. No special tax breaks. No government hand out. They did it because they knew the value of a good education. Public education was was great then compaired to now, but they wanted better. Things have been deteriorating steadily since then and easily could have been remedied with well cast votes.
Tobin is clearly correct that Giordano/Unions have no defensible reason (beyond perpetuation of their stranglehold on public goods and the fisc) to oppose "giving poor parents the same opportunity to take their kids out of failing public schools and into successful private or religious institutions the wealthy have." That Berkely is correct that underclass features brought to the schools often undermine schooling merely misdirects us from Tobin's point — poor (as in impecunious) parents should have the choice, even if some poor parents are poor (as in bad) parents. I do object to Tobin's hyperventilating final paragraph, with its premise of "Are not the children of the poor made in the image of God the same as that of the wealthy?" followed by an "if so . . ." Indeed, all children are made in the image of God. However, such overpowered premises are often applied beyond the range of truly public goods to justify state distribution of other goods — i.e., forcible redistribution.
The "goods" are already being forcibly redistributed. But the money is going to the rat holes of public schools instead of to the parents where it might do some good. The public schools in my county spend $8000.00 a head to indoctrinate the kids. The private school I struggle to send my daughter to charges $4500.00 a head. Why shouldn't that 8k be given me as a voucher so I can use my tax money better than the government can? Either way the money is being spent, now it is just being wasted.
I'm no fan of teachers' unions, but I do live in D.C. and I don't recall Obama ever having had anything to do with local education issues. Should you consider writing about other national problems, please be advised that Obama is not responsible for all of them.
You can take the best private school around,stocked with the very best teachers ,and if through a" population transfer",you import 2,500 students ,75% or more of whom exhibit behaviors associated with underclass pathologies-the school will be ruined and the vast majority of those great teachers will become demoralized and rendered ineffective.And it's the same school…. The little pilot programs,conducted with great fanfare are of zero predictive value when dealing with the vast numbers of academically unprepared,emotionally hostile kids that the public schools accommodate.Arguments for privatization in the name of what's in the best interest of the students presuppose that the problem students and their families are not the authors of their own actions and that they can be molded through the will of enlightened reformers- exhibiting exactly the same kind of social engineering hubris all too common on the left…….Paradoxically all the education reform talk,beginning with"A Nation At Risk"'s critique of the "rising tide of mediocrity" has presented the underclass with another set of powerful arguments and reasons for evading responsibility for their own actions&pointing the finger of blame at others for their own condition-and yes,asking for money. And this time the spur to rationalization comes with impeccable establishment credentials…………Invoking the children and the poor in the way Mr. Tobin has is a perfect example of why the discussion of education reform needs a period of" benign neglect"…..If I didn't know any better I would have expected him to break into a chorus of"Imagine" as an encore.
But the point is since the school is private if your kid acts up lets say they give you three strikes then your kid is out of the private school, eventually your kid will behave or get relegated to the public school which would basically be there for all the rejects since the kids and parents that care would thrive in a private school environment with other kids and teacher that care
"Obama, it should be recalled, did his best to end a successful experiment in school choice in the District of Columbia…." I live in D.C.; this is a completely inaccurate statement.
It's funny that liberal advocates of the status quo argue that poor / minority students are to blame for the failings of public schools, since this argument completely discounts the value of competent teaching. If teachers and teaching methods don't matter, only the preparation and values of the students, then why do we fund public schools at all? Why hire or train teachers at all? Of course in teaching, as in all things, there is a difference between the competent and the incompetent. It's strange that in the US, it's the teachers themselves, and their unions, that try to deny the role competence plays in their field.
what is not fair is that public/govt. employees get to retire with taxpayer funded luxury pensions and benefits while at the same time those same taxpayers also have to fund their own retirements through social security and 401k's. Recent examples of this fleecing of the taxpayers is the city manager of Berkeley Ca who just retired with a pension of $249,000/yr, more than their actual salary. The recently retired police chief of San Francisco is collecting $240,000/yr. Employee pensions make up 31% of SF's total labor costs. Time to end the pension scam and have public/govt employees fund their own retirements like the rest of us.
Nancy Carter suggests that public schools assume the role of being"there for all the rejects",surely as noble a vision of public education as has been articulated since Plato or John Dewey. But what if public school principals enjoyed the prerogatives of their private school peers and had the option of expelling students,who have reached the age of fifteen, after three strikes? Then perhaps the expensive,distracting and meaningless pseudo-reforms advanced by self aggrandizing educational know nothings like Bill Gates and Mike Bloomberg would be unnecessary. According to Quinnipiac fully 60% of the public disapproves of" The Education Mayor"'s handling of the schools even if the editorialists at The Times and The Post know better……No one discounts the value of competent teaching,contrary to what Vanya Wright seems to believe. And no one would suggest that minority students themselves, as opposed to their misguided advocates, are to be held responsible for what I consider to be the main failing of the schools:Politically motivated,cowardly educrats who positively re-enforce the negative behavior of the troublemakers. The more poorly you behave,the more services you get.Usually to no avail,and at the expense of the students who are respectful,and who are trying to succeed.Nonetheless it must be admitted by even the staunchest teacher/union basher that the power of even great teaching to affect educational outcomes has its limits. And that success in school is very largely a result of what goes on in the home.Hard working,well intentioned students do well in"bad" schools(sometimes better-there's less competition) and arrogant goof-offs do poorly in excellent schools. Ironically the school reform movement has created yet another class of self-righteous,finger pointing victims who attempt to shift responsibility for their own educational shortcomings onto teachers,unions, or whatever else might serve that purpose. And it should also be noted,pace Vanya Wright, that being opposed to current approaches to reform doesn't entail being in favor of the status quo……… Jean Deux is bitterly resentful of teachers"'luxury pensions."But those benefits aren't a sufficient enticement to keep half the teachers from quitting their jobs within 5 years.Including Joel Klein who lasted less than one year in the classroom.