Wednesday, March 05, 2008

'White schools' and 'n***** schools'

The problem with conservative ideologues like Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal is that rarely do they "conserve" anything. Except, of course, the ability of radical individualists to blow up society for their own profit.

Thus, the dirty little secret behind the "school choice" agenda Jindal has embraced in his call for the state's second special legislative session this year,
as reported by The Times-Picayune of New Orleans:
The governor spent little time in his prepared remarks on the tuition tax deduction proposal. But teachers union lobbyist Steve Monaghan said afterward that it could define the tax portion of the session.

At a $20 million cost -- allowing parents to deduct half of each child's tuition cost up to $5,000 per child when figuring their taxable income -- the plan is a blip on the state's budget radar. But the precedent, Monaghan said, would establish that the state's educational priority list is no longer topped by public schools.

"This is a distraction," said Monaghan, president of the Louisiana Federation of Teachers. "If we're truly concerned about building a world-class public education system, then we have to stop sending mixed messages. Why incentivize sending children to private schools?"

Jindal said the idea, which was not part of his campaign platform, came from several legislators and other advocates of "school choice."

"They made a persuasive case," the governor said. "We think it's important for our families to be able to send their children to high-quality schools all over Louisiana."

WHY IS IT that someone who bills himself as a "conservative" -- particularly a fiscal one -- is so enamored of what amounts to welfare for the well off? Or at least well off enough to shell out thousands of dollars a year in private-school tuition.

Welfare for the at least moderately well off is what Jindal's proposed tax credit is, too. And it's what passes for sound public policy in the eyes of Jindal's buddies in the "school choice" movement.

One of those "school choice" friends is Rolfe McCollister, publisher of the Baton Rouge Business Report and a founder of the city's Children's Charter School.

McCollister, who's had his scrapes with the local school system, recently penned a column calling on voters not to renew a penny sales tax that funds part of teachers' salaries and provides funds for school construction and renovation. He decries the local public schools' poor performance, particularly their record with at-risk students.

This despite his own charter school's barely passing grade from the Great Schools website, which uses publicly available data and parent ratings to grade America's schools. In fact, according to Great Schools, McCollister's Children's Charter School had the second highest pupil-teacher ratio of any school within a five-mile radius, while earning only a 6 rating on a 10-point scale.

One would think Children's Charter School would be drawing the at-risk children of the most motivated of at-risk parents. Parents you would assume at least gave enough of a damn to try a charter school. Yet. . . .

On a college grade scale, 60 percent is a D. Barely. On my old high-school grade scale, 60 percent is a solid F. And one nearby public, non-charter school at least managed a C. Barely.

IF I'M BOBBY JINDAL, I'm going to be seeking out advice on education policy from "D" educators? And I'm going to be following these folks' advice to pursue a policy of undermining public schools . . . for what, exactly?

There are none so blind as right-wing pols who refuse to see.

"Conserving" a civic culture and a functional society does not include aiding and abetting the "school choice" of the relatively privileged while abandoning the rest to a "separate and unequal" public-education system. There is no "conservative" principle, properly understood, in tolerating decay and dysfunction as the normative environment of those "left behind" in public schools.

(East Baton Rouge Parish public schools, in the wake of court-ordered desegregation, now are 83 percent minority and 79 percent African-American. Most students are eligible for free or reduced-price lunches.)

And there is nothing "conservative" about opening the public coffers, wholesale, to private groups for carrying out the public's business. In this case, that would be educating Louisiana's children.

"Conservatives" have forgotten -- utterly -- the flip side of freedom. That would be "duty." Just because middle- and upper-class folk have the ability to "escape" a struggling school system, that freedom to do so does not therefore become an entitlement underwritten in whole or in part by the state.

And it certainly does not translate into some "right" to cast the less privileged into an abyss of voters' making, either by commission -- as in the separate but unqual of Jim Crow days -- or by omission . . . as in the separate but unequal of some McCollisterian "I'm not paying a cent of tax money for 'failed schools'" dystopia.

When, by default, most white children attend private schools partially underwritten by public monies and most black children attend public schools abandoned to decay and dysfunction, it is difficult to discern how the "desegregated" present differs substantially from the darkest days of de jure segregation.

LONG AGO, before de jure school segregation had breathed its last in Baton Rouge, my parents used to threaten me with being sent to "the nigger school" when I misbehaved at the officially all-white Red Oaks Elementary. That was supposed to imply a fate worse than death to a young mind indoctrinated, from birth, into a white, racist milieu.

Now, in my hometown, they're working on making every public school "the nigger school" -- with all the awfulness that once meant to little white ears -- and all you have to do to get your kid sent there is not have enough money (or luck, or whatever) to get into this generation's "white school."

And if you don't have the dough (or luck, or whatever) to get into the "white school" in the first place, I don't see how Bobby Jindal -- or his proposed tax credits -- can offer you any hope. Any hope at all.

Let me know how that works out for you, Louisiana.

4 comments:

Bear said...

"Conservatives" have forgotten -- utterly -- the flip side of freedom. That would be "duty." Just because middle- and upper-class folk have the ability to "escape" a struggling school system, that freedom to do so does not therefore become an entitlement underwritten in whole or in part by the state.

I think that instead of using the word "struggling", it would be more appropriate to use the word "failing". Additionally, I think that to be fair, it's not an "entitlement" as much as it is a chance for a parent to have more of a say in the education their children receive. There is no reason why a consumer MUST pay for 2 products, 1 of which they do not use.

And it certainly does not translate into some "right" to cast the less privileged into an abyss of voters' making, either by commission -- as in the separate but unqual of Jim Crow days -- or by omission . . . as in the separate but unequal of some McCollisterian "I'm not paying a cent of tax money for 'failed schools'" dystopia.

In the United States of America, we DO have the right to make a choice as far as how our children are raised.

When, by default, most white children attend private schools partially underwritten by public monies and most black children attend public schools abandoned to decay and dysfunction, it is difficult to discern how the "desegregated" present differs substantially from the darkest days of de jure segregation.

I'm not quite sure where you got your idea that most white children attend private schools, but I think you're exaggerating a bit. The bottom line is that in order to make change in schools, as in business, and create schools which are actually effective, you need to quit patronizing them. Maybe then, the elected school officials will get off their collective asses and get these schools in shape. The first step would be to fight the unions and start making the teachers accountable for their student's performance, as they are in private schools.

Anonymous said...

If they haven't already, the "school pro choicers" will next trot out some sort of line about the marketplace being the best tool to allocate scarce resources to education. That fiction will be their entree into a full blown voucher system.

And how can we argue with choice anyhow, right? But choice for whom? Will the private schools provide transportation from the impoverished areas to their campuses? Will they recruit non-athletes in the 'hood?

Will the poor be offered a rebate on the taxes THEY actually pay--sales taxes?

Will private schools go "whole hog" into educating the mentally and physically handicapped?

Will the vouchers make private schools more affordable to the upper classes but still out of reach for the poor?

Will the vouchers drive out the few middle and working class white families from the public schools?

Will vouchers ultimately erode the public education system while giving the poor no realistic alternatives to it?

And oh yeah, I forgot, the school pro choicers will begin invoking the name of God into this somehow-- the public schools are Godless, but private schools can allow prayer.

If my wife will ever finish Pope Benedict's new book, I will get around to reading it. One thing she tells me, though. Pope Benedict tells us to be wary of politicians who invoke the name of God to secure political advantage.

But that's for another post, I guess.

Anonymous said...

The poor already get their taxes back and the public schools are in shambles because most public school students come from unstable home environments, with little or no supervision, and have no understanding of accountability or respect for authority figures.

The gov't cares as much about public education as they do inmate rehabilitation, which is to say, not very much or not at all.

So, it's not surprising that students, and the student's parents who actually care about their education, would want to send them to a private school where they are much more likely to receive a good, solid education and in a learning environment free from the disruption and disrespect of the hooligans and future criminals that run ramped in private schools.

I thank God that I live in a "free" society, in which I have the choice to guarantee my child a proper education and the likelihood of a healthy career; if that means sending them to private school via a voucher or my personal expense, then, I am all for it, and any parent who is involved in their child's life and education should be all for it, as well.

Anonymous said...

Galactic Dreamer--even the childless whose tax money is going to public education are getting something for their money.

The payoff is living in a state with a more educated populace to interact with, in all facets of life. There is such a thing as the public good. We're not all just "consumers" whose lives are completely walled off from each other.