Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Scumbria who wrote (145405)	5/14/2001 7:12:29 PM
From: greenspirit	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 769670

Just another article describing how Democrats sacrifice our children in order to hang on to the mantle of power. _________________________________________________ Parental Choice In Education Isn't Always The Answer hudson.org Herbert London A Vote Against School Privatization In New York Suggests Parents Are Easy Prey For Political Hucksters And Teachers Unions Bridge News May 2, 2001 For a long time I've been a proponent of vouchers for public schools. My belief stems from my confidence that, if left to their own devices and with accompanying tax-levied funds, parents will make appropriate educational decisions for their children. My confidence in this matter, based on recent events in New York City, has been shaken. Recently a plan to privatize the management of five failing schools (three in Brooklyn, one in Harlem and one in The Bronx) by the for-profit company Edison Schools Inc. was defeated by local parents. Leading the opposition was Bertha Lewis, the executive director of Acorn, a community organizing group in Brooklyn. Although more than 2,000 parents did vote in this community-wide plebiscite, they were outnumbered by the 3,000 who didn't. Still, through outright opposition or apathy, the Edison proposal was defeated. Some parents seemed to be offended by the Edison videotape selling the project, which appeared intended for stockholders rather than parents. But it is also the case that the United Federation of Teachers, reflexively opposed to any school privatization scheme, lobbied vigorously against the proposal. Big political guns were summoned for the battle. The Rev. Al Sharpton, Rep. Charles Rangel and former mayor David Dinkins all spoke out against the Edison contract. Ironically, all three of these figures send or sent their children to private schools. Despite endorsements from Mayor Giuliani and other public figures-- possibly because of them--Edison received a stinging rebuke, even though it has a sterling record of saving failing schools in communities across the country. In this case the record counted for very little. The stakes were large and the U.F.T. sought and found a blueprint for defeating privatization plans. Edison's stock price declined by 19 percent in the two weeks after the Brooklyn vote. Nonetheless, Edison currently manages 113 schools in 45 cities and, if even a portion of the testimonials are credible, does an extraordinary job in what are generally marginal schools. Yet that message was lost in the negative media barrage. Brooklyn parents were sold a bill of goods--that Edison was out to milk the community for stockholder profits. As former Mayor Dinkins noted, "The parents were told you have no option but to continue with crummy schools or give them to Edison." Neither option was considered desirable. Chancellor Harold Levy, who has been lukewarm about all privatization arrangements, said he planned "to pump substantially more money into these failing schools." That money might not be the answer has not occurred to Levy. Educational systems in which judges required additional tax support in an effort at "equalization" have not substantially changed because of more money. On the contrary, money may mean less than U.F.T. leaders would have you believe. That the public in question could be so gullible or bamboozled, however, does give one pause. After all, neither Acorn nor the Board of Education have a plan for the failing schools. Moreover, no one questions the claim that these schools are failing. In the face of these conditions it might be assumed that parents would entertain a serious alternative. That did not prove to be the case. Admittedly, New York is a uniquely charged political environment. The amount of energy and resources needed to effectuate any change is disproportionate to the likely outcome. Still the Brooklyn experience has made me wary. If parents can be manipulated there, why not elsewhere? If privatization is rejected because profit is engendered, why won't privatization be the target of propagandists? I remain a firm believer in vouchers and privatization arrangements, but I am no longer quite so sanguine about the ability of parents to make the right choice. Inner city communities are filled with hucksters who are out to bilk members of their own neighborhoods. They set a trap for Edison in Brooklyn even when other educational options were not immediately available. If this judgment seems harsh, ask yourself why a significant proportion of New York City teachers send their children to private schools and why the leading spokesmen against privatization send checks to private schools for their own children. If only the parents knew that before they voted against Edison.