I think it's fair to say that Jesse Blumenthal, CMC '11, demolished Andrew Bluebond CMC '11.
(To be fair, Bluebond isn't a member of speech and debate and Jesse clearly did a lot more research for the debate. To be unfair, it is rather hard to defend non-school choice at a private college of all places, but I'll avoid the whole meta debate.)
At the end, they opened it up to audience questions and shook hands.
I asked, innocuously enough, if the public schools were so good, why so many of the Claremont Democrats attended private schools -- only to be shouted down and told to shut up by several of the Democrats present, including Bluebond himself! Some have suggested that my argument is ad hominem, that is to the man. I submit to you that it is not for the following arguments.
If we have a "distribution" problem whereby the smart and wealthy are choosing to either 1) live in wealthy suburbs that have high property taxes that keep out the poor or 2) exiting the school system entirely by home-schooling or private schooling their children, you have a serious problem. If a town or state was losing population due to high taxes or bad services, we would rightly be asking what was wrong with the town, but why don't we make the same kind of arguments when so many are choosing to move out of a neighborhood based upon the poor schools? Blumenthal was exactly right to point out that its the movement of people that's leading to the re-segregation of the public schools.
In fact, the prep school I attended, Milton Academy, was more, not less diverse along racial lines than the public school my siblings attend. (Of course, on socio-economic lines, it wasn't close, but then again, liberals often make diversity arguments based upon race, not socio-economics.)
Bluebond, the speaker of the pro-government schools side noted several problems with school choice which Blumenthal rightly pointed out as flawed argumentation, like the example of Florida where teachers unions stopped a successful school choice program. Incredulously, Bluebond complained about how the program only had two years worth of data behind it!
In fact, there's lots of evidence that school choice has worked even without us knowing it. And you can thank one of America's most marginalized religious groups for showing us the way -- American Catholics.
The Catholic hierarchy historically encouraged the development of parochial schools to ensure the moral and religious training of Catholic children. As a result, scholars recently found, countries that had a higher percentage of Catholics in 1900 now have a greater overall number of private schools. Using an international student-assessment survey, and controlling for demographic factors, the authors calculated that countries with more private schools due to a “larger historical Catholic share” in the population did substantially better on achievement tests in all three subjects measured— math, science, and reading—while spending significantly less money per student. The authors argue that Catholic “opposition to state education in many contexts engendered private school competition that ultimately spurred student achievement.”
It was unfortunate, though, to see so little brought up about the other school choice programs that are offered in the United States or elsewhere. Jesse brought up the great stuff on Sweden's voucher programs which both liberals and conservatives. (He incorrectly called it the K.I.P.P. program.)
What neither side addressed is that the voucher argument largely centers around poor children. Vouchers are seen as a mechanism to improve "failing" schools, not make "good" ones, "excellent". I've never been able to find out why this is the case. Shouldn't we make education, not schools, the focus of our public policy? Who cares if the schools are hurt if we're producing better students with technology?
To a degree, Bluebond made this argument himself when he said that the D.C. school system is an unfair example as it deals only with socio-economic problems.
He's right, of course. It is unfair to call for vouchers for the poor, but not the rich. Vouchers for all; choice for all.
5 comments:
Really, Charles? Do I really have to do this AGAIN?
Jeez. Ok.
I won't respond to any of your commentary on the debate or the issues that were discussed, Charles. You are entitled to your opinion of how it turned out (admittedly, it was not my best performance).
I would like to make one point of clarification for your readers, though. You asked a question about my choice to attend private high school and Jesse and I deemed it to irrelevant to the debate. When we tried to move on to another question, you kept shouting over us. We told you to shut up because you were disruptive, not because of any particular views that you hold. Saying that Democrats told you to "shut up" doesn't tell the entire story, and I think that you know that.
Actually, Andrew, that's not right on your part. I said, "no answer is an answer" and that it was a "fair question." It is. It's a shame you didn't answer it and told me to "shut up."
I guess audience questions only goes too far, huh?
Charles, if you had wanted to ask a constructive question about the issue of "distribution" in American education, you could have.
But "if the public schools were so good, why so many of the Claremont Democrats attended private schools" is a question clearly loaded with personal implications, and therefore completely irrelevant to the debate. Don't pretend like you couldn't have asked a question regarding your point that wasn't accusatory and baiting.
Mr. Johnson, how would you feel about a plan including traditional public schools; far lower barriers and far more encouragement for starting charter schools; and vouchers, worth slightly less than public/charter schools get per student. Vouchers are only valid at schools which:
- Clearly distinguish between secular and religious education, if religious education is offered.
- Teach only scientifically accepted truths during secular portions of the school day, without teaching any religious theory.
- Do not discriminate in admissions based on religion, race, etc. (Which I think is already the law for private institutions.)
- Offer transportation similar to that provided by the public schools. (This one is negotiable.)
I think such a compromise would be acceptable to all parties involved, (save the teachers unions). We can harness the power of the free market, which everyone ought to acknowledge, while protecting the American ideal of a solid, roughly equal education for everyone.
Post a Comment