Re: "How Third World!" & the anti-ED

[Scott Hays <shays@ccwebster.net>]

On Jul 19, 2006, at 3:23 AM, Csubstance@aol.com wrote:

> I've tried to suggest that the reason for private schooling, for  
> the wealthy,
> has less to do with academic reality and more to do with class  
> prejudices
> than most would be willing to admit. There is a lingering racism  
> beneath the
> surface of the current era that has to be discussed, even if it  
> makes people less
> than comfortable. And it becomes visible among affluent people when  
> candor
> reigns. I hope people won't mind my extrapolating from an  
> admittedly isolated
> anecdote that I've already shared with many people during our  
> discussions of why
> public schools are under attack, and by whom.
>
> ... [snip]

> I still suggest that the basis for private schooling in the USA has  
> little or
> nothing to do with educational "quality" in the sense of  
> challenging the
> child intellectually or in sports, but snobbery and some really  
> deep (and often
> racist) class prejudices.

I began to comment on the very same subject, yesterday ... not as  
eloquently nor with the same personal experience as you brought to  
the subject.  As you say, deep (and often racist) class prejudices  
drive the urge of many to segregate themselves and their children  
from "others" (whomever the others might be).  While Art tends to  
view such analysis as Republican bashing, it has nothing to do with  
political affiliation (other than the GOP tends to promote a climate  
of fear against which we should react) and in fact crosses party  
boundaries.  It also underlies related issues that affect the socio- 
political landscape, such as homophobia, anti-immigration  
discussions, and even ongoing inequities between males and females.   
Now, the Dept of Ed has finally unveiled its $100 million  
"opportunity scholarship" plan (i.e., vouchers ... or, as Reg Weaver  
calls it, "pig-perfume"), this despite the NCES report which has  
given rise to this thread and which will be ignored by all those  
families so desperately seeking to surround their children (and their  
homes ... perhaps their entire communities) with other children and  
people who are exactly the same as they.

I would also point out that, if education is the priority of the  
states (as Art keeps informing us, even when he avoids addressing any  
one of the ten points James Horn raised yesterday, then why is the  
federal government going into the business of using taxpayer dollars  
to send children to private schools?  Sounds to me that if they can  
do that, they could just as easily use the same $100 million to  
actually improve the public schools, particularly since the  
"unimproved" (or "in need of improvement") schools are already  
performing just as well as the private schools that will  
theoretically rescue all those poor children.

Scott Hays
shays@ccwebster.net

"Wrinkles only go where the smiles have been."
- - Jimmy Buffett