> I could be mistaken, but for many liberals teacher and public school
> bashing
> is a convenient face saving strategy. They see and bemoan the growing
> disparity between the rich and the poor, but instead of admitting that the
> problem is structural, which would require a radical solution, they fancy
> themselves that the poor are merely "left behind" by the educational system
> - so they imagine that half-assed and acceptable to corporate bosses
> "solutions" aiming to "fix" education - first by busing, now by weeing out
> "bad" teachers and privatizing schools - will solve the problem
>
I haven't yet listened to Doug's interview with Ravitch, but I seem to recall that her op-ed a few weeks ago (in the WSJ, I think) noted that the strongest factor in student success was not teachers but poverty. So, liberals think of good teachers saving education, which would "level the playing field," which then means that people really would be getting what they deserve when they're poor and un(der)employed. Right? I guess that's oversimplified, but it seems like the way this country understands education these days: the injustice is that not everyone has access to the same quality education. When they do, then everything else will be fair and just, because there won't be any argument over whether the playing field is level, or level enough, or something.