Re: [arn-l Digest] Vol. 4 No. 656 Messages: 5

[Scott Hays <shays@ccwebster.net>]

On Dec 13, 2010, at 3:20 AM, aburke5054@aol.com wrote:

> This list is a never-ending source of examples of people who claim  
> they are all for democracy and local control erupting in paroxysms  
> of rage when parents exercise rights that threaten the status quo.  
> Special interests in education, like special interests elsewhere,  
> like changes that suit themselves and resist changes that don't. Are  
> you really surprised that supporters of the status quo are fomenting  
> counter-revolution? In any event, keep trying to make this about  
> corporations and not about parents fed up with schools that don't  
> meet their child's needs because that is clearly working out well  
> for you.
>
> Finally, I guess you missed where the LAT said ,  "The parent  
> trigger is a promising initiative based on the idea that parents are  
> smart enough to have a hand in determining the future of their  
> children's schools."

This message isn't really directed at Art (though I am sure he will  
have some snarky comment to make about it), but more to everyone else  
who has to deal with people like Art wherever you are found.  What Art  
is missing in all of this ... whether because of his own prejudices  
that are shaped by his experiences and world-view, or intentionally  
because he likes to rile everyone up ... is that this demand for  
change did not emanate "from the parents", but instead was brought to  
them as a package deal put together by an outside force.  The fact  
that this outside force is prominently led by a member of the  
California State Board of Education and had already designated who  
would run the new charter once it was "approved" by the majority of  
parents suggests that nothing like a grassroots democratic movement  
has taken place, at all.  Far from it.  If the system were truly  
democratic, the parents of McKinley (as well as people living in the  
community served by McKinley) would not have to petition anyone to  
restructure their school, and the purely partisan political question  
of who was in charge wouldn't even have to be addressed.