More Public V. Private Hoop-la

The National Review Online would like to comment on the public versus private school debate, but first they would like to get in a jab at the New York Times for placing this story on the front page, above the fold. (If you don't know what that means, just think literally about the newspaper that you get on your doorstep - oh wait, maybe you don't get those, since newspapers are single-handedly destroying the environment and are the secret weapon behind Jonathan Swift's "A Modest Proposal" for eating Irish babies).

Ok. Now that we're done knocking the Jew York Times - oops, did I just verbalize NRO's real problem with the NYT? - we can get on to talking about what's wrong with public schools. Or private schools. Or... wait, what?

I like this article because Chester E. Finn Jr, Hoover Research Fellow, admits many of the truths that people don't often talk about when they discuss private schools. Such as, of course private school kids are going to score better on tests, 'cause they be rich. And that part of the reason parents send their kids to private schools is to self-select their peer group - I always thought of this as "I want my kids to go to school with white kids." I guess at some schools, like the school I worked at here in DC, it was, "I want my kids to go to school with liberal white kids are the 'right' minorities." Whatever. It's basically the way that people complain about the DMV. Public school, to many upper middle class whites, is like going to the DMV. We only go there because we have to, and if we can avoid it, we will at all costs.

At least Chuck admits this. (I know, "Chuck" is a nickname for Charles, but I think it works for Chester, too. We could call him Chester the Molester. I bet he got called that as a kid. In any case "Chuckyfinn" is hilarious.) He also says that "they a’re free to hire the best teachers available, certified or not, their instructional staff is often knowledgeable as well as caring." While in my last post about this, I disparaged private school teachers for not being certified, I have to say I completely agree with this assertion. Even though I have a master's degree in the subject area I taught for three years, I am not good enough to teach in public schools anywhere in the country without jumping through a few flaming hoops first. I would be in a Prince George's county school right now if they would let me, but I'll be damned if I'm going to take a bunch of loser-ish education classes where they A. insult my intelligence and B. treat me as if I'm not a real teacher. I'd rather not waste my time, thank you. If I miss teaching so much that I need to do it again, I'll go back to a private school where they value my degrees, my high grades, and my creative approach toward lesson planning.

Chuckyfinn also comments rightly that private schools can teach character in a way public schools can't. Sometimes this "character" is a bit hypocritical (ahem, Quaker schools, anyone?) but most of the time even if not done perfectly, private school students are more likely to say please and thank you and have the ostensible trappings of civilization. This doesn't mean they're not posting naked pictures of themselves on the internet or sniffing glue, but at least on the outside they're well-behaved and well-dressed. Hahaha.

My big problem with this article is that he insists on criticizing the New York Times, and I think it clouds his point. Because what is he really trying to talk about, schools or how much he (and all conservatives) hate the New York Times?

"Private Performance: The New York Times gets excited." (Finn, C.E. NRO, July 17th)