Juan Williams on School Choice

I have a lot more respect for Juan Williams now than I did prior to the NPR incident.  I thought of him as a parrot of the Leftist talking points for NPR, but when that happened, it made me realize just how iconoclastic he can be.  Hence the reason I show the clip at the bottom of this blog entry.

Before I continue with looking at Williams' comments on school choice, I might as well give my abridged take on school choice.  I find that considering the other indicators of the overall greatness of a given nation-state, America's quality of education is by far lacking in quality.  The monopolistic nature of the education system eliminates any need for competition, which thereby stymies most, if not all, potential for innovation and growth.  Many conservatives propose the concept of school vouchers, which entail the usage of tax dollars to provide students with school choice.  I would rather not have the government intervene in education, just as a libertarian ideal.  It has the potential to have just as much out-of-control spending as current entitlement spending.  However, if I had to choose between the current system and providing school choice [in the form of vouchers], I'd opt for the latter.  School choice has been implemented in places such as Milwaukee, Canada (particularly in Alberta), and Sweden with a relatively large amount of success.  Even though some in Chile are stirring up a ruckus regarding school choice and are being overtly critical of the education system, America should nevertheless give it a go.

That being said, I will move on to the comments provided by Juan Williams.

Williams brought up the point that one of the primary reasons why he became passionate about the issue of education is because of the drop-out rates in high schools.  Although the drop-out rate has dropped on the national level, it remains to be seen as to whether that applies to the inner cities, particularly since that would have to be measured on a district-by-district level.  Knowing the quality of inner cities, it is not a stretch of the imagination that the quality of education is suffering, as well.

Williams then continues to say that education reform is the civil rights issue of our time, particularly because of the "soft bigotry of low expectations."  This "bigotry" has its origins in a Bushism.  I don't like how it was used in the context of No Child Left Behind, but the concept remains the same.  Although it might be controversial to say, this bigotry is quite similar to the problem indicative to affirmative action.  Hispanics and African-Americans are two ethnic groups who are recipients of affirmative action.  Unfortunately, they disproportionately live in inner cities.  The problems overlap here.  Affirmative action subtly says that certain ethnic groups are unable to sustain themselves without [government] help.  Asians, Indians, and Jews are minorities that did not need help (e.g., affirmative action) to establish themselves in American society, and have worked their way up the socio-economic strata in spite of the stigma.  These successes tell us that minorities can succeed in American life.  When one says that a certain minority cannot succeed in this country, that does indeed turn this scenario into a "soft bigotry."  The fact that the "soft bigotry" permeates into the education system is all the more appalling.

Williams then proceeds to say that the parents need to be reached.  The parents, much like the teachers, feel a degree of self-defeatism.  In spite of this, I have to agree with Williams.  Parents need to stand up for their children.  They need to demand more from the status quo.  In short, they need to be parents.  If nobody is protesting the status quo, it will most certainly self-perpetuate.

Speaking of perpetuating the status quo, Williams brings up the point that unions heavily support the Democratic Party, which, looking at the quantity of donations, is largely true (not quite 100%, but is pretty close).  From that perspective, Democrats are more "classical conservative" (i.e., preserving the status quo) than the Republicans are.  How can school reform occur when the teacher unions are preserving the status quo?

The final point that Williams brings up is that in a globalized world, you need something beyond a high school education.  However, as he brings up, many are being told that one does not even need a high school education.  According to a recent Brookings Institute study, education is one of the major factors in the decrease of median wages amongst the male population in America.  The Pew Center shows that getting a college education (i.e., a Bachelor's Degree) is worth it.  However, what good does that do if you are already being told that you shouldn't even pursue a high school education, let alone a post-secondary one?

In short, you know the extent of the problem is bad when the New York Times is reporting on the corruption of public schools.  Something needs to be done to remedy the quality of education in this country.  The status quo is clearly not adequate.  Whether it is a call for school vouchers or otherwise, I simply hope that the United States government makes true education reform while cutting back on the amount of governmental intervention.