I hate to pick on Tim Pawlenty since he has dropped out of the presidential race but something he said when he was in the area has been rumbling around in my head. When someone asked him about education he refused to use the term, "public education" or "public school" and instead insisted on using the term "government school." He said "if parents want to send their child to a private school they should be given that choice, if they want to home-school, why God-bless them for that, and if they need to, we should provide the best government school possible." Former Senator Santorum has used similar terms to describe public schools.
I teach at a private, faith based school, which is struggling with enrollment issues. I suggested we borrow from Pawlenty and Santorum and start referring to the local public schools as government schools and do it with the most sinister sounding sneer we can muster. My suggestion didn't meet with a positive response and I said it in jest. But when did public schools begin to be described as "government schools," or even as "indoctrination centers?" It doesn't take long on the internet to find references to both. Some might be considered to be fringe opinions but others such as Milton Friedman, wrote for the Cato Institute in 1995 that public schools should be abolished. (http://www.cato.org/pubs/briefs/bp-023.html)The blame is generally placed on teachers and the teachers unions. Sometimes government corruption and waste is mentioned. Rarely is poverty, the lack of resources, and poor parenting mentioned. The solution most suggested is to give family vouchers and letting them choose where to go. Never mind that the amount of the voucher would generally only cover 1/3 to 1/2 of the tuition most private schools charge. In other words, I don't think it would work.
One surprising line I ran across was from Milton Friedman, the supply-side economist who won a Nobel Prize back in the 90's. It goes as follows, "If the widening of the wage differential is allowed to proceed unchecked, it threatens to create within our own country a social problem of major proportions. We shall not be willing to see a group of our population move into Third World conditions at the same time that another group of our population becomes increasingly well off. Such stratification is a recipe for social disaster." Friedman wrote this in 1995. It now seems as some folks think it would be best if the difference in wealth was encouraged, or at least they don't see it as a problem. And in that context, it seems some, including Presidential candidates, think it is time to get rid of public schools, effectively consigning many citizens to a permanent underclass.
2 comments:
it would take some chutzpah for people associated with private religious schools to refer to public schools as indoctrination centers. That's all I have to say.
Ed, I know and agree. I think it takes chutzpah for anyone to refer to public schools as indoctrination centers and the term "government schools" bothers me as well. With just a quick internet search it was surprising to find how many of the current Republican candidates talk fairly openly about gutting public schools. I don't think it plays particularly well in Iowa where most people seem to approve of their public school system, but they persist in their criticism. Much of it is aimed at teachers, but there again, I think most people like or at least appreciate the teachers their kids have. I really don't see how privatizing schools or vouchers will improve the educational system.
Post a Comment