. . . Say what you
want about Gore, but the notion that he has been anything but completely and
entirely on the record in opposition to privatization of public schools and
vouchers, and that he has held to that position for some time, is just made
up of sheer, whole cloth. . . .
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Turns out I had a few things to say about that too, but it might have violated my daily 20-post limit.
I am very suspicious of any promise by Gore to increase some component of discretionary spending. This part of the budget has suffered the most since 1981. It's the easiest stuff to either cut or allow to atrophy with inflation. An increase in one place is liable to be associated with unheralded cuts elsewhere.
The Clinton budgets have been especially misleading with respect to new spending initiatives. The commitment to massive surpluses puts the discretionary budget in all the more danger.
Gore deserves some credit for raising the issue of class size. It seemed like the Administration was using their reinventing government campaign to affirm the worth of public sector, but they never put a great emphasis on this, and now they piss away whatever good effects they have generated by bragging (untruthfully) about cutting the size of government.
Gore's main saving grace re: education is his hostility to vouchers. Meanwhile, charter schools are booming, not without a little help from the Administration. Clinton also lent some moral support to awful educational contractors like John Golle. I think the danger of vouchers is overstated. They are more dangerous as propaganda than as policy. But Gore does deserve a point for his position.
On the other hand, as noted below, Gore echoes the conservative line of Chester Finn that "charter schools are public schools." By this reasoning, vouchers are public schools too. Here you can see how a concession on principle opens the way to bad program.
In a related vein is the extent to which a failure to criticize commercialization of social life leads inevitably to privatization pressure. If everything is for sale, why not schooling? In this sense, Gore is reminiscent of Dukakis, for whom competence trumped ideology. Problem is, competence is hard to verify at long distance. Bush's ideology is plain and popular enough to outshine Gore's evasion of basic principles. Gore et al. are clever in the small but dumb in the large.
mbs
>From the Gore/Lieberman campaign book:
". Expand start-up funds to help launch high-quality charter schools. Al Gore and Joe Lieberman will provide planning and start-up grants, help successful charter schools share their successes with other public schools, and help charter schools establish performance benchmarks and become models of accountability. · Create incubators for successful new charter schools. Al Gore and Joe Lieberman will help communities create a physical site where charter schools can operate and provide start-up assistance until they have attracted sufficient students and financing to move into permanent space. · Help ensure that charter schools have facilities in which to operate. The Gore-Lieberman school modernization plan will cover charter schools to help finance facilities costs. Charter schools are also eligible to participate in the Gore-Lieberman initiative to provide loans and grants for emergency repairs to existing school facilities. · Help turn around 100 of the lowest-performing school districts in America through raising standards and promoting universal public school choice. Al Gore and Joe Lieberman will help 100 of the lowest-performing school districts adopt standards-based reforms, convert every public school into a school of choice, allow all parents to choose the right public school for their child, . . .