[Originally posted on the original RAWbservations]

A couple years back, I was in a conversation with the (then) president of the UH Democrats, in which she touched on just about every Republican I don't care much for (David Dewhurst, Tom DeLay, etc) and mentioned a couple Democrats that I don't hold in as low regard as others (Chris Bell, John Sharp). At some point she asked me "How is it that you're a Republican again?"

The thought has occured to me that RAWbservations has been drifting a bit to the left lately. Opposition to the death penalty, concern for wealth inequality, pro-gay marriage, and so on. Rest assured, I am no further to the left than I was when the site was started over six months ago.

So, I'll start on issue #1 with which I cannot stomach establishment Democratic policy: Education.

The Democratic approach to education seems to be "Don't change a thing! Just send more money into our failing system!"

I had to read over that statement a couple times to make sure that I'm not being unfair, but after doing so, I don't believe that I am. They state that (a) any substantial change to the system is bad, (b) the system needs more money because (c) it's failing.

One would surmise from the gyst of that statement that the system is failing for lack of money. In a way, that may be true. Not enough money makes it into the classroom and schools often cannot afford what ought to be basic educational equipment. What I don't buy, however, is the notion that there is not enough money going into the system and, furthermore, putting more money into the system would be a substantial benefit. In Texas, the average Houston Independent School District student is worth $6,500 to the district (that stats on this are a bit outdated, but the point stands). The average student in neighboring suburban Clear Creek Independent School District is given $5,500. The latter offers a substantially better education.

Of course, one could argue that the HISD needs more money than the CCISD because the latter has the cream of the crop. They have the children of engineers and professionals. They have computers and home and so forth. That's both true and valid. However, how much money would it take to compensate for parents who cannot afford to assist their children's education or choose not to? How much is that worth? In my case, it's invaluable. Without my father's demand that I stay focused, my grades would have perpetually stayed poor and I never would have gone to college. Others get by without my parental support, though, so it's a difficult thing to gauge.

So would an extra $1,000 per student do it? Apparently not. What about $2,000? What about $3,500 per student (enough for a laptop and substantial educational software for every student. Well, it so happens that $10,000 is about what the Washington DC school district spends per pupil, and it is universally regarded as one of the worst school districts in the country. You could argue that the DC school district is abnormally corrupt, but money feeds corruption. Throw enough money at the HISD without reform and it'll start looking a lot more like the DC district. Why? Because money or no, they presently have no incentive to improve. They have a captive audience and virtually no one to answer to.

So what would work? That brings me to the next part of my statement: "Don't change a thing."

Now, liberals don't say that much. They are rhetorically in favor of reform, until you start making suggestions. After which, they reflexively oppose any actual substantive change. Some may support some measures and others may support others, but at the end of the day the Democratic establishment is hostile to each and every change I have heard to date. Some examples:

Standardized tests: "They will just start teaching to the test!" and "Some students are not good test takers.

I can vouch for their claim. When I was in school, TAAS testing took up a load of my English course. What I do remember, though, is that my teachers were never more serious about anything than they were about preparing for that test. We spent class after class going over insipid analogies which were a crux of the test at the time. The answer, though, is not to abolish standardized tests, but rather make them more reflective of what students need to know so that when they're "teaching to the test" they're actually teaching the students what they need to know. Then they go to their next argument.

It's true, some students are not good test takers. I'm one of them. I failed the TAAS test not once but twice. I had to take a remedial reading course because of it. That being said, tough luck. Give students multiple chances to take the test, require remedial classes, but making them somehow prove that they've learned something and don't have a socially promotioned diploma. I have always been a slow reader and the TAAS test's time is what tripped me up. Making me prepare to take it again would have done me much more good than harm (it's a bit of a moot point since I passed the exit TAAS exam with flying colors, but the general point stands).

Charter schools: "There is no oversight"

Most Democrats don't come out opposed to charter schools outright. Instead, they promote an increasing amount of oversight. That, of course, defeats the entire purpose of charter schools to begin with. The more oversight, the less charter. They are meant to be able to experiment. They need to be able to try new things. Even new things that [gasp] the teachers unions don't approve of. They need to be able to set their own academic calender, schedule, and curriculum. Forcing them to abide by the same rules as standard schools merely waters it down. Once it's watered down, then Dems and libs can point out that they're not all that effective. The convenience of this is not accidental.

So am I suggesting that they be able to do whatever they want and thus be free not to teach the kids a damn thing? No. They would be required to take the same standardized tests as above. That way, they have to teach the same basics, but are given flexibility to do so how they choose. Ironically (and conveniently) they oppose charter schools partially on the grounds for which they oppose the remedy as well.

Vouchers: "It takes money from public schools" and "It's a violation of church and state" and "It'll only help the students that least need helping"

The first argument is just silly. Yes, it does take money from public schools, but it also relieves them of some of their responsibilities. Currently, schools are overcrowded, so think of it as a way to ease that. If the schools have too many students, then take some of them away and it's win-win. But no, schools want to have their cake and eat it too. It's a flawed argument, to say the least.

The second argument is also wrong-headed (though I'm willing to give those who make it the benefit of the doubt for good intentions whereas I'm not on the first). So does money going to religious institutions to provide an education create a problem for church and state? I would have to argue not, and I have existing law to back me up on it. Those recieving money from the Montgomery GI Bill can spend their money at any institution they choose (even Baylor and Brigham Young). Because it's there choice, it does not constitute government-sponsored religion. Now, if you believe that's wrong, I disagree but at least you're ideologically consistent. So to those who make this argument: Do you agree that vouchers or constitutional or would you say that Montgomery GI Bill folks shouldn't be able to go to Notre Dame?

And on the last argument, I concur that in its existing form vouchers would only help a small number of students. That's why they are part of the answer and not the entire answer. Additionally, when these programs are started, new schools will pop up. The same applies to charter schools.

So even though vouchers and charter schools are not the answer, they can be a part of the answer. They are at least doing something, but liberals are so interested in preserving the status quo that they find reasons to oppose anything and everything to disrupt the school system that is, in their own admission, failing the kids. So should I call them liberals, conservatives, or just plain wrong?