The 1991 George Orwell Doublespeak Award should go to President George Bush and Secretary of Education Lamar Alexander. Both of them know that millions of Americans are strongly opposed to using tax dollars to pay for private and parochial school tuition. It was only two years ago that President Bush took this position himself. He stated, in no uncertain terms, the public dollars should only be used for public schools. When he called a White House conference on school choice, he specifically limited choice to the public schools. Alexander expressed similar views in the past.
Bush and Alexander have clearly changed their basic views. Indeed, they have flip-flopped on the issue. This is not the first time a president or a cabinet member has undergone a change of heart or mind. But usually when this happens, the public is told the reasons. What circumstances have changed? What new ideas or arguments have emerged that are powerful enough to change strongly held convictions? Unfortunately, we'll probably never know the reasons because Bush and Alexander have decided to take an Orwellian approach.
In the book 1984, Orwell describes a political technique used by dictators (but not limited to them) in which discussion of public issues is avoided by a clever use of language. Orwell describes the presence of signs and posters proclaiming WAR IS PEACE and FREEDOM IS SLAVERY. And now, instead of offering us reasons and arguments, Bush and Alexander are proclaiming, PRIVATE IS PUBLIC.
According to a news report in the Washington Post (November 27, 1991), Bush told an audience in Columbus, Ohio, that" 'any school that serves the public' provides public education." And, the story continues, "Bush specifically cited religiously controlled schools that are publicly accountable as falling into that category." He also called for greater competition among schools.
But just what does he mean by "serves the public" and "publicly accountable'? Does he mean that the schools must be willing to accept all children who apply and for whom there is space? That they must follow the curriculum that has been established by public bodies? That they must educate the handicapped in the least restrictive environment? That they must seek to get all students to learn the English language? That they cannot expel students or expel them without due process of law? That they must give the same exams to kids that are required by the public schools and honestly report the results to the public? That they must make their attendance and dropout rates public? That they are subject to civil rights laws with respect to the composition of their student bodies and faculties?
Don't hold your breath. That's not what Bush and Alexander are saying. They're saying that any school that educates some kids and that abides by the very minimal rules that states have established for private schools will, from now on, be called a public school and get taxpayer dollars. That's akin to saying that if my family and friends swim in the pool in my backyard and if I obey no more than the health and safety rules ( almost none) that apply to private swimming pools, my pool will be called a public swimming pool and I can get the taxpayers to pay for it.
Bush and Alexander are calling for competition among schools. Some might question that as a school improvement strategy since none of our democratic, industrial competitors whose schools are doing better than ours features school competition. But even if you believe competition in education is a good idea, what kind of competition will it be if public schools are forced by federal, state and local governments to live according to one set of rules (many of which are unpopular) while their competitors are bound by almost none?
An example: In a number of cities, some parents, schools boards and educators believe that African-American male students would receive a better education in schools limited to them. Recently a court in Detroit rules that it was illegal for the Detroit system to establish such schools, but of course that ruling doesn't extend to private schools. So under the Bush-Alexander approach, taxpayers would pay for private all-black male schools, even though the courts have declared them illegal. How in this situation, could the public schools compete?
There are probably some parents who would want their kids to go to schools established by the likes of David Duke in Louisiana or Leonard Jeffries in New York. And these schools wouldn't violate the state laws governing private schools. If Bush and Alexander want public dollars going to schools like these, they should say so honestly and openly. Or if they want to make sure the public dollars don't support such schools, they should tell us how their scheme would prevent that from happening. Or if what they are trying to tell us is that they don't like all or most of the laws governing public education, they should say how they propose to get rid of these laws. (In fact, their approach reduces the pressure to remove or modify unpopular laws governing public education.)
Of course President Bush and Secretary Alexander haven't talked about any of these issues. But that's what their doublespeak is all about -- making the public think that TOUGH IS EASY.