
                         Roanoke Times
                 Copyright (c) 1995, Landmark Communications, Inc.

DATE: TUESDAY, November 1, 1994                   TAG: 9411140030
SECTION: EDITORIAL                    PAGE: A4   EDITION: METRO 
SOURCE: 
DATELINE:                                 LENGTH: Medium

SCHOOL LESSON

THERE IS too much "us against them" in public dialogue these days, especially in a nation where "they" so often turn out to be "us" when anyone takes the time to scratch away the grime of built-up resentments, assumptions and special interests.

One area where this is particularly apparent is in efforts to improve public schools. A commentary from a group called the Council for Aid to Education argues that the language of school reform puts the debate on a counterproductive, adversarial basis. Good point.

Whether the language is the cause or merely a reflection of divisions is open to question. But it is unarguable that teachers, school administrators and parents whose politics and educational philosophies cover the spectrum all would like children to be educated as well as possible within taxpayers' ability to pay. And many see a need for change.

One thing hampering reform, the council suggests, is the attitude that to bring about change, there must be an adversary to be challenged and defeated. This attitude is apparent in the word used to press for improvement: "reform." "Reform" suggests that anyone who disagrees with a proposed change is a villain, set in opposition to those who would do what is good and right.

In fact, so many "reforms" have come and gone with so few signs of improvement that the public may be forgiven for not leaping immediately to the conclusion that doubts and outright opposition necessarily spring from villainy.

The commentary makes a valid observation when it gets to the merits of private vs. public education. The underlying problem is that adversarial word: "versus." On one side, it points out, are reformers who favor private management of some school operations or even entire schools, on the theory that a private enterprise may operate more efficiently and effectively and parents deserve "choice." The other side argues that education of the populace is a public responsibility. It is the public, after all, that pays the bills and must be satisfied with the result.

Are these positions mutually exclusive? The council suggests dropping the "us vs. them" barriers and exploring, in some cases, advantages of private management under public oversight. Fair-minded people would at least entertain the idea.

by CNB