An
earlier item today on a British politician under fire for sending her son with dyslexia to a special-needs private school instead of using public special education services has brought a strong rebuttal from Cynthia W., a frequent commenter on this site, who writes in part, "I can’t believe that people are getting on this woman’s case about doing what she thinks is best for her child. Her child is not a political pawn. She needs to do what’s best for him, not be dictated by what looks like a good public relations move. His welfare is far more important than political posturing at his expense. And she’s paying for the private school herself." The schooling of politicians' children has often been a political hot potato -- I remember debate in particular over whether it would be hypocritical for presidents Carter and Clinton to send their young daughters to private schools instead of Washington D.C. public schools -- and while I'm sure no one feels comfortable making a child a political pawn, it's hard to believe that parents whose children are not in public schools can make as dedicated a commitment to making them the best they can be as those whose children struggle there. Certainly, when it comes to special education, parents who are in the trenches seeking services most likely have a far sharper understanding of what's needed than bureaucrats in boardrooms; it's at the very least a missed opportunity to have a politician who might be able to get something done sidestep those trenches. Do you think politicians who are in any way involved with the funding and regulation of public schools should be expected to send their children there? Pick an answer from the poll at right, and continue the discussion in the comments.
Comments
I don’t think it follows that you would not be as good at improving public schools simply because your child doesn’t attend. Many people help children who have issues unrelated to the issues their own children have — yet they are effective. A doctor in town has been wonderful about advancing knowledge and securing funding for kids with cancer — but his four kids are all healthy. People who don’t have any kids at all have done great work for children. And what if this woman had no kids? Should she not be in her position because she doesn’t have kids? What if she is effective? And maybe she can be more effective in working for public schools because she isn’t distracted worrying about her kid. Also, just having a kid with special needs should make her more sensitive to the plight of other special needs kids because she does have a frame of reference. And she does have motivation to really improve schools in this area — as she said herself, she hopes to send him back to public school in a few year’s time.
Cynthia