WASHINGTON, July 26 (UPI) -- Of the many terms used to criticize public school vouchers, the most confusing has to be "divisive." This is not only because the word fails to reflect any kind of reality, but because of the individuals and organizations who use it.
CBS correspondent John Roberts epitomized the liberal view of vouchers in January 2001, reporting, "The Bush White House packaged in its first week an image of the president as a 'uniter.' But Bush's message has often been at odds with the mission: The Ashcroft nomination, new restrictions on abortion counseling, plans for school vouchers, an in-your-face attitude that has Democrats reluctant to let down their guard."
In Roberts' world, no one who wants to bring people together should advocate vouchers because they are too controversial and will not unite people.
Another of my favorite media pejoratives are that vouchers are "quietly gaining support" among minorities. On the surface, the description appears to be positive but what, exactly does the phrase mean?
Look at how Education Week, which calls itself American Education's Newspaper of Record referred to minority efforts to advance education reform in two separate articles in 2001: "Hispanic Group Quietly Initiates Big Charter Push" and "Minority Parents Quietly Embrace School Choice."
"Quietly" is never actually explained in either article. There is no explanation of just what, exactly, these minority parents and organizations are doing that makes their actions quiet. Many of the activists working on the issue suspect that it is merely the lack of attention from the media that causes the quiet, not the lack of activity on the part of its advocates.
It was disappointing that efforts by a leading national Hispanic advocacy group to raise $10 million from private foundations to launch charter schools aimed at Latinos did not make the front page. Fundraising on that level would generate more than just a little buzz if it were to promote safe sex or anti-tobacco initiatives in the public schools.
Using "divisive" to describe vouchers is equally as interesting because of who else is using it. Bob Chase, the immediate past president of the National Education Association teacher's union, says, "Vouchers are a divisive and expensive diversion."
Chase's claim should cause more than one person to stop and say, "Wait a minute. What exactly are they a diversion from? From the embarrassing failures of American public education? From the hordes of inner city and minority parents who are grasping for any way to save their children's futures? From the appalling number of children who graduate from schools every year who cannot even read at a functional level?"
Given the opportunity to speak directly with him, I would enjoy the chance to say, "Hey, Bob, when people are using every available exit to escape from the public school system, that's not a 'diversion,' that is pretty darn central to your and the NEA's stated mission ... You know, education. It's what you're supposed to be promoting."
Returning to the dread "divisiveness," what does it really mean? As CBS's Roberts noted above, the nomination of John Ashcroft to attorney general was generally considered "divisive," though pretty much every reason to oppose him boiled down to one sentence, "We disagree with him about ... fill in the issue here."
By that standard, every single political appointee and elected officials should be called "divisive." People can almost always be found who oppose their ideas to some degree -- no one who runs in a contested election wins with 100 percent of the vote, at least not in the United States.
Yet, with the possible exception of Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, D-N.Y., I cannot recall any current left-of-center figure who carries the "divisive" label as part of their name. And in her case, it is just among the vast, right-wing conspirators; the media would never call her that.
There are three blocs involved in the voucher debate: The politicians, the policy wonks -- who won't be affected either way -- and the students and parents.
An objective analysis of the situation suggests strongly that vouchers are divisive only where a stake in the current educational system and its failures exist.
Vouchers clearly divide students. Currently, if a school is a miserable hellhole of crime and ignorance, nobody can get out. With vouchers, some students with involved parents can escape to better schools. There are no other alternative ideas in the mix besides vouchers other than the same ones that have been tried for the past 30 years: smaller classes, more teachers and more of the same.
Do vouchers divide parents? They sure do. Parents can now distinguish themselves as caring, concerned and involved, whereas before vouchers, their failing students reflected poorly on them, not the teachers and administrators at the helm of the education establishment.
You can make a case that vouchers are "divisive" and that may be true. They divide children from failing schools and they divide parents from hopelessness. Unfortunately, as part of the campaign to discredit them, the division they cause is being used to try and discredit the concept. In other contexts, the advocates would be embraced as reformers. And while all this is hashed out, children -- particularly the poor and minorities -- continue to be denied a chance to succeed.
* Raul Damas is director of operations at Opiniones Latinas, a polling and communications strategy firm specializing in Hispanic-American voters and consumers.
