dec2000

Link to: Table of Contents
Link to: December 2000 Issue pdf. file format (best for printing)

MONTHLY LETTER MAILBOX: Register to receive the Monthly Letter by mail, send us your comments, questions or compliments about this or any other issue of the Monthly Letter, or let us know what's happening in your community and state for coverage in future Monthly Letters. We welcome your input!

CER Home Page CER Monthly Letter E-Mail CER CER Publications

S             ome in the media have called the public’s attention to
            the inconsistencies in many a politician’s rhetoric. NBC’s
            Tim Russert, for example, took to task Vice President
Gore in this fascinating exchange this summer: RUSSERT: You mentioned vouchers tonight. There was quite an interesting exchange on it. Al Gore August 9 in
Carthage, Tennessee—your hometown—If I was
the parent of a child who went to an inner-city
school that was failing, I might
be for vouchers, too. GORE: Yeah, yeah. I sa—and I said
something like that tonight. If I
thought there was no alternative,
I might feel differently about
vouchers. But, look, Tim, that’s
why I want to make the dramatic
major improvement of our public
schools our number-one priority.
I’d budget for it. I shift money out
of the lower-priority programs.
This has to happen. RUSSERT: Why not take just a small amount of money not out of the public
schools, separate and above from the
surplus... GORE: Doesn’t work that way. RUSSERT:...and—and let those poor parents—give them a chance? GORE: Doesn’t—do—doesn’t work that way, Tim. Most
communities set aside a certain amount for—I
know you feel—I know you’re in favor of vouch-
ers. RUSSERT: No. I—I have no view on it. I have no view. GORE: Well— RUSSERT: But—but I went to a private school, you went to a private school. Your children go to private school,
mine goes to a private school. GORE: All of my children went to both public school and
private school. In most communities— RUSSERT: Why—why not give—why not—as you said, If I—if I was a parent of a child who went to an
inner-city school that was failing, I might be for
vouchers, too. Why not give them a shot? GORE: No, I didn’t—that—that—you’re—you’re— you’re—you’re changing it just a little bit. Matthew Miller, a syndicated columnist for Tribune Media Services  suggested some courageous approaches in his now nearly-famous Atlantic Monthly article a year ago. Rather than
hold to their own ideologies, he recommended in one of his
columns that both sides give a little. “If leading liberals are
willing to question the public school monopoly, and promi-
nent conservatives hear the call of justice, the voucher debate has a chance to move forward. The sensible first step would be a much bigger road test. Here’s the idea I have put to various players in the debate: Suppose everyone came together and said, Let’s take three or four big cities where we agree the public schools are failing. (Leave out dens of mismanagement like Newark and Washington, where spend- ing is high but ineffective). In these cities, we’ll raise per pupil spending by 20 percent giving urban schools the resources the left says they need…But we’ll implement this increase by way of a universal voucher sys- tem that finally gives every child a choice.” In other words, Miller says, why not both? Interestingly, choice propo- nents and conservatives said OK, but we’re still waiting for him to find an affirmative from someone in the Blob. R       More cogent and intellectually open media arise every so
often in the editorial pages of The Washington Post, which
offered the sage wisdom chastising school boards in Virginia
for not agreeing to accept charter applications, which that
state’s weak law allows them to do. The Post pointed out in its
piece that “no system, no matter how successful, has a
monopoly on good ideas. Agreeing to accept applications
doesn’t guarantee that any will show up or require a board to
approve them if they do. It does send a clear message that
boards are open to hearing from those who think they can
improve on what’s being offered…” On school choice, The Washington Post shocked observers when it proclaimed on November 1 its support for at least
some experimentation with vouchers in the states. “Being a
public school student in a poor urban district in this country
also carries risks — risks that are well known, quantifiable and
persistent over decades. That scandalous fact leaves us reluc-
tant to dismiss out of hand those states that seek to give such
students more options.” The Post acknowledged the risks, but A Toast to the Media that “Get-it.” 10 continued on page 9