School vouchers has been a difficult issue for me. I am not a big fan of most ideas from Milton Friedman (who first proposed school choice back in the 50's) or most of the politicians who have promoted vouchers. Furthermore, I generally support public education and labor unions. I have always voted to fund public education at every opportunity. At the same time, I also recognize that education has traditionally been a public-private partnership with a significant number of our students educated in private or church-related schools.
Education does not seem to work well with one size fits all solutions. It seems unlikely that the public school system is going out of existence nor should that happen. In some districts, the public schools are doing a great job and there are some troubled public schools where it is difficult for a child to get a decent education. The notion that poor children ought to have the opportunity for private education where there are failing schools seems to be a very populist concept.
Democrats often strongly oppose experimenting with vouchers. Joe Lieberman dared to suggest that maybe school vouchers are not such an bad idea - one of a few issues that has haunted him in the Democratic primary. Like many issues, what cause problems with Democratic primary voters can be a strength in the general election. Teacher unions and secularists - both opponents of vouchers have a strong influence within the Democratic Party.
Educational choice is an important issue for values voters and Democrats might have more appeal to that constituency with a less hostile attitude toward vouchers. Our party should support public education but reconsider the knee jerk opposition to school vouchers. If approached the right way, a little competition between public and private educators can help improve all of our schools and the quality of education.
* SINATRA: AN INFLUENCE ON AMERICAN MUSIC AND POLITICS
Among my other interests outside of politics is music. I am especially into older musical styles - R & B, classic country, early (pre-Beatles) rock and roll, gospel, jazz and especially pop standards. One of my favorite singers is the "Chairman of the Board" Frank Sinatra. Eight years after his death, Sinatra continues to gain new fans around the world.
While his popularity was greatest with the WWII Generation, Sinatra had appeal to a wide range of age groups. In fact, Sinatra had top 40 hits ranging from "I'll Never Smile Again" in 1941 to "New York,New York" in 1980. Some of Sinatra's greatest recordings were never chart hits such as "Lady Day" - a moving song about the troubled and all too brief life of blues singer Billie Holiday - which appeared on the 1969 "Sinatra & Company' album.
There was also a political side and social activist side to Frank Sinatra. In the late 40's, Sinatra appeared in a 10 minute film short called "The House I Live In" (also a hit song) which appealed for racial and religious tolerance in America. Sinatra was always an outspoken critic of racial segregation.
As a John Kennedy supporter during the 1960 campaign, Sinatra recorded a version of "High Hopes" that promoted the JFK candidacy. The song was featured on Kennedy TV advertising and also blared from campaign soundtrucks in major cities. http://tinyurl.com/r6ddq
Like many Catholic ethnic Democrats, Sinatra became disillusioned with the Democratic Party following the McGovernite takeover. Sinatra later supported Ronald Reagan for President appearing with Reagan at St. Ann's Catholic Church in his hometown on Hoboken,New Jersey. In supporting Reagan, Sinatra symbolized millions of New Deal Democrats who felt alienated from the party.
Bill Clinton paid tribute to the "Chairman" recognizing the need to win back the "Sinatra Democrats." Some observers have even suggested that George W. Bush has looked to Sinatra for inspiration in his developing his misguided foreign policy "I Did It My Way."
I am a Baby Boomer and became familar with the wide range of Sinatra's recordings in part by listening to a weekly syndicated radio program called Sounds of Sinatra which is still on the air in a number of markets. Sounds of Sinatra has a website at www.soundsofsinatra.com with links to radio stations that stream the program on the internet.
There was certainly a dark side to the "Chairman" but in my opinion, Sinatra was among male vocalists the greatest interpreter of the American popular song. Mel Torme was also a great singer but was more the leader in the jazz realm. Given the present state of American popular music (and I think we are really more in a post-musical era in terms of pop music), the odds of another Sinatra coming along are quite slim.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
11 comments:
I have a Sinatra greatest hits CD; I find it great for long plane rides. I think it kept me company for most of the time over to Italy. Lenny Kravitz got me back home.
I like that at least you're open-minded enough to consider opposing ideas. School vouchers are definetly not black and white.
Attacking Republicans since 1988
I have a radical thought that I am sure will generate some opposition.
Eliminate private schools. Force every American to attend public schools and see if the well off and rich start fighting for better public schools. People might become more dedicated if they know their children have to attend these schools.
I like Sinatra.
School vouchers aren't vouchers, they are private school taxpayer funded discount coupons. They get their appeal from those who personally benefit from them and those who just dislike our public school system.
Meanwhile as Paul Krugman states centrism in politics and even voting for the man versus the party at the national level is dead. ".... in 1994, the year when radical Republicans took control both of Congress and of their own party, things fell apart, and the center did not hold. Now we’re living in an age of one-letter politics, in which a politician’s partisan affiliation is almost always far more important than his or her personal beliefs. And those who refuse to recognize this reality end up being useful idiots for those, like President Bush, who have been consistently ruthless in their partisanship."
http://tinyurl.com/nnnwo
"Right Democrat"
Nice blog ...
We agree on many things.
However; I firmly believe that "school choice" is a backdoor metaphor for "privatization".
Not much different than "trickledown reganomics". Yea, it trickled down ok, right into investor’s pockets.
Nothing “republicanomics” (borrow and spend) has done has resulted sustained lower prices to consumers. Their deregulation schemes nearly bankrupted California, via Enron. The airlines are screwed, and when Texas deregulated state universities tuition doubled in 4.5 years. School privatization will not result in lower taxes, ("non-profit" means breakeven, "for profit" means breakeven + $'s). We have choices now, attend public or pay extra for private... it’s a choice. Private should not be publicly subsidized. For profit public education is just plain wrong. Education is not a commodity like corn, or a product like widgets. Private companies, given the same funding as traditional public schools, cannot run more efficiently, turn out better students, and have money left over for investors.
Gradually the competition created is not for better test scores but public funds.
(The ole, enormous “cash cow” waiting to be tapped by private investors.) Once public schools are replaced by private schools corporations like "Edison Co", they become govt. sanctioned monopolies in each community served. (That's what republicans really want.) This scheme has nothing to do with educating children. The voucher plan sold as a way for parents have a choice is more smoke'n mirrors.
In areas where both public and private operate, the private go unregulated and are allow to cherry pick the best students and discard others back to public schools. This gives the appearance of high performing. Private schools practice favoritism based on whose “Daddy” can donate them the most money. While a kid in public school has to stand on his own merit.
Many private schools do not play by the same rules. It could be compared to an NBA basketball game where one team gets 5 “Kobe Bryants.” and cut all the players they want, The opposing team must play the Kobe’s with every high school player that tries out. The Kobe’s are allowed to foul at will.
Few people actually see the game but read the headlines exclaiming, “Oh look at the success the Kobe’s are having!” “We need more teams like that”! See the scores prove it!
Public schools are no longer able to discipline students, yet are held accountable for bad behavior and are funded based on filling a seat. Yet a private school can say hit the road kid we can’t allow your behavior anymore, thanks for the tuition.
No child left behind like all other GOP feel good phrases, are nothing more than good ideas that were never intended to be funded properly anyway. These were merely pacifiers, thinly veiled marketing campaigns to give the appearance of caring. (The same GOP pattern can is seen with homeland security, health, care, and immigration reform.)
I say fix the public schools with the proper funding, discipline tools, and salaries. Hold students and their parents accountable for bad behavior. Good pay will attract good teachers. We already have schools in place let’s fix them
A cow has only so many utters, more cows will just raise the feed bill!
Who said that? I did,
Pro-Life Democrat,
Steve Washburn
Voucher proponents almost never provide an example of how the voucher would actually work. Instead, they tend to trot out the trojan horse of poor families locked in bad schools.
There was a voucher initiative on the ballot in California about 6 years ago. It was defeated soundly. The problem was that the math could never add up, and I have since tried to get proponents to show a system where the money does add up.
Still waiting.
to thebaldman,
Trying to make a connection between Reganomics and vouchers is completely off base.
Giving parents a choice where the government money goes will make schools accountable for their performance.
Bad schools won't get students so they won't get funding and good schools will reap the benefits of running a good program.
It is not privitization, it is competition. It is very similar to how our universities work. And although I don't agree with the politics of most colleges, I know that our higher education system is the envy of the world.
I might be wrong, however, my mother was a teacher for 30+ years and she wished there was some accountability in the public education system.
She started to disagree with the NEA 4 years before she retired. She saw it as a purely political organization with no regard for the kids.
I know I am biased but that is my opinion.
And to superman....
Are you going to teach you kids to blame rich people when they face the real world, or are you going to teach them to overcome their problems because you taught them well?
Blaming your plight (if your life is a plight) on other people, regardless of financial status, is a cop-out. `Force every American to attend public schools and see if the well off and rich start fighting for better public schools'. I am curious why you use the word 'force'. Who is going to force? Isn't it already happening? I went to a school and I had no choice where I went.
I also want to know why you wouldn't want your kids to attend a better school if they had a choice.
I am not a father but I am a proud uncle.
I have had this conversation with my brother and I think he agrees with me now.
My nephew needs the oportunity to choose where he goes to school, and it shouldn't be based on his address.
And to you Gary,
If your theory is correct, why would rich people want this? Wouldn't they eant to keep the 'bad' elements out of their schools?
Acording to the web site adl.org, "Most Americans believe that improving our system of education should be a top priority for government at the local, state and Federal levels. Legislators, school boards, education professionals, parent groups and community organizations are attempting to implement innovative ideas to rescue children from failing school systems, particularly in inner-city neighborhoods." Doesn't that scare you? When they referene 'Legeslators, school boards, education professionals' before they mention parents or the students that attend these schools, it tells me that this is more about who controls the funding rather that who the funding is for.
I wonder if the discussion ought to be re-framed in terms of consumer based public education rather than school choice. This approach follows the European model. Public money goes to parents and parents choose the school they want to go to. The vast, vast majority of the schools are public, but families can choose private schools -- albeit they are carefully regulated by the government. Belgium follows this model and it seems to do a good job of prodding their schools toward excellence.
This model recognizes the positive aspects of the voucher approach while embracing and celebrating the need for a broad-based and excellent public education system.
Post a Comment