[Vision2020] Effective v. ineffective idealism

[Joan Opyr]

On Mar 28, 2006, at 8:25 PM, Jack Porter wrote:

> I resent the tone of moral superiority affected by Joan and Keely 
> regarding the alternative high school.  "Throw-away kids" is not a 
> term, or a concept, used by anyone I know.  Those of us who have 
> advocated running a bond levy to rebuild West Park and Russell without 
> the alternative high school thought that plan would get more votes, 
> and it's too bad the school district didn't include that option on the 
> survey so we could find out.
>
> Keely thinks that tactic would be "viciously pragmatic," but I ask, is 
> it more harmful to kids to pass a levy that solves some problems, or 
> to fail one levy after another and solve none?
>
> The list of desirable improvements in the schools is far too long for 
> voters to be willing to fund them all right now.  So should we 
> prioritize and try to eke out a 2/3 majority for something, or refuse 
> to support any proposal that doesn't include someone's favorite 
> project?
>
> Jack Porter
>

As much as I don't want to play tit-for-tat with you, Jack, I don't 
care if you resent my tone or not.  Have at it!  Resent away!  I 
certainly don't think that I'm morally superior to you -- you have the 
right to voice your opinion.  I don't happen to like your opinion, just 
as I don't like the way you have, in the past, spoken about the 
alternative high school or its students as if they were disposable.  
Yes, I recognize that the words "disposable" and "throw-away" are not 
words that you have used.  I also don't claim that they accurately 
describe the way you feel about the alternative high school or its 
students.  However, I will stand by the assertion that that is the 
impression I've gotten when you have spoken publicly about your favored 
bond levy.

Moscow's school facilities are in dire straits; perhaps we can agree on 
that.  Where we will disagree is in my belief that under the present 
circumstances, there is no levy of any kind that would pass Moscow with 
a 2/3 majority.  I won't vote for a levy that pours money into 
expensive renovations for Russell and West Park while ignoring (even if 
only for the time being) the pressing needs of the high school and the 
alternative high school.  Others won't vote for a levy that includes 
anything other than Russell and West Park.  Another, sizable body (led 
by Jack Wenders and Dale Courtney) won't vote for money for public 
schools, period, and they will resort to their usual deceptive and 
nasty tactics to ensure any bond's defeat.

Effective versus ineffective idealism?  My Aunt Fanny.  We either pony 
up for the schools or we sit back and watch them disintegrate.  Here's 
my sad prediction: we will wait until Russell and West Park are beyond 
repair (perhaps that day has already come for Russell); we'll wait 
until the high school is falling down around our ears; we'll leave the 
alternative school and its students in terrible limbo.  Then, one day 
in the not too distant future, we will gaze upon the ruins of what was 
once a fine school district and wonder, "What the hell happened?"

Neighborhood schools are a good idea; I'm in favor of neighborhood 
schools.  But I think it's possible to let our vision of the glories of 
Russell Elementary blind us to the equally pressing needs of McDonald, 
Lena Whitmore, the high school, the junior high, and the alternative 
school.  I have absolutely no faith in the idea that once Russell and 
West Park have been renovated, the same people who fought for that bond 
will leap forward to support a second or a third or a fourth bond to 
fix the other schools in the district.  Call me a cynic, but I don't 
think it's wise for the entire district to rely on the un-bonded 
promise of future altruism.  Either we give a damn about all of our 
students, or we don't give a damn about any.  Looks like we'll be 
voting for the latter.

Joan Opyr/Auntie Establishment
www.joanopyr.com

PS: With me, it's all or nothing/Is it all or nothing with you?/It 
cain't be in between/It cain't be now and then/No half and half romance 
will do . . .