Liberals and urban schooling:

Just another reason why I left the Left


http://www.educationsector.org/analysis/analysis_show.htm?doc_id=376661

This is a very revealing and honest interview with a Democratic coucilwoman from NYC. For years everyone has been arguing that the problem with inner city schooling is unequal funding. Logically, this has always bothered me, because it seemed to imply that increasing funding alone will improve education. Well in recent years, much research has surfaced to show that the conventional wisdom is WRONG. WRONG WRONG WRONG.

Conservatives, and free-market advocates have repeatedly questioned this notion by claiming that the monopoly on public education is an even bigger problem, but have the Democrats budged? Nope. Meanwhile, low-income, minority kids continue to suffer, because of an uncritical assertion that more money is the answer to everything. Well, over the past several years school funding in many urban areas has come close to being leveled off and we haven't seen much improvement.

It should come as no surprise that in NYC, Republican Mayor Bloomberg, a business guru prior to his political days, instituted reforms centered on accountability, decentralization, and smaller schools and, what do you know...test scores are rising. This is one of the primary reasons why I left the Left. Education and economic issues have led me to be somewhat of a moderate-conservative. Of course people don't vote on this stuff. They vote on gay marriage, flashy smiles, and statements from Hillary Clinton insulting the intelligence of black people by saying, "The Republicans are running Congress like a plantation!" Yes, we know the Republicans are failures. But can you address something substantive when you come to Harlem?

One of the best books I've read about the urban education policy is "No Excuses: Closing the Racial Gap in Learning", published in 2003. It is an eye-opening account of how big bureacracies are failing inner city kids, along with a plethora of other factors that liberals are too scared to address because of political correctness, among other things. First it was open-ended welfare, then it was the public school monopoly...what has the Left done in the past several decades to help low-income people? Why are they insistent on keeping kids in failing schools, by limiting school choice?

New Age moderate Democrats, like Cory Booker in Newark, recognize that items like vouchers are essential, in the short-run, until broad reforms occur. Hopefully he won't allow himself to be intimidated by teachers unions, who are highly responsible for the slow process of school reform because they are a leading Democratic interest group.

But this is only part of the story. As I aspire to enter the arena of policy, I've been doing a lot of research on educational reform and policy. There are a lot of problematic issues with liberal politicians. This is why I'm independent, and will not vote for Democrats simply because my parents did. We have to be a little more critical of their policies.

One of the most interesting things to ever come out of Dubya's mouth was his call for "compassionate conservatism." At the time he uttered this, I was college student, and a close-minded liberal that thought Republican = racist, evil capitalist at all times. So, like many of us, I saw through this empty rhetoric about him being compassionate, which he obviously hasn't been. But it's an interesting concept. Here's a good article on what differentiates "compassionate conservatism" from "liberal paternalism" and the welfare state:

http://www.city-journal.org/html/15_2_compassionate.html