Hypocrisy is the name of the game when it comes to elected officials, lobbyists, and influencers who oppose school choice with their votes, rhetoric, and campaign donations and then opt their own children out of the very school systems in which they work hard to trap everybody else’s children. The very people who drive policy and pass laws in the city of Providence have never felt any real sense of urgency since their beautiful babies have remain untouched by the lack of instruction, low expectations, and “reasonable dinginess” of the schools in the city that they represent.
Ian Donnis of Rhode Island Public Radio did an important public service when he reported on which school lawmakers from Providence have chosen for their own children. Sure, a few send their children to Providence schools, but most have made the decision that the Providence Schools are not the best choice for their family. Maybe it’s fit. Maybe it’s reading instruction. Maybe it’s facilities. Maybe it’s safety. The reason is irrelevant—what is relevant is that they were able to access an escape hatch. They were able to make a choice.
But my child has dyslexia, they may say. Sure, and it’s likely that approximately 20 percent of the children in the Providence Public Schools have some form of it too. Is it any surprise that the moms I saw cry the hardest at the public forums have children with dyslexia who are being denied services or access to appropriate reading instruction in PPSD?
But our religion is really important to our family. Fine, but are we to assume that low income families wouldn’t say the same about their religion? Are we to assume that, if given the chance, none of the 24,000 students in Providence would do a beeline straight to a religious school?
We support public schools so we chose to send our children to public school. Oh, great. Which one? Is it the lowest performing one in the city? Does it have single digit proficiency in math? Or did you take advantage of your zip code on the fancy side of town to access the school that is so in demand, a lottery has to be held to determine who in the neighborhood gets to go? Or is it the only public exam school in the city that screens students with an exam before they can enter?
I do not begrudge any parent for the educational choices they make for their children. Whether it’s Governor Raimondo, Senator Sheldon Whitehouse, or state senator Gayle Goldin, they have every right choose high priced private schools for their children, as they have. But I do begrudge those who choose for their own children and then block low income families—or any families, for that matter—from having any quality options at all.
Anyone whose rhetoric, deals with teachers’ unions, or actual votes have impeded parents’ from having access to educational freedom is, by definition, a hypocrite. They are living examples of the ugly, but all too common, life philosophy of “choice for me but not for thee.”
And parents should not stand for it. It is wrong.
If our elected officials would not send their own children to a school, then they have no right to ask or expect any other parent to do so. And they don’t even ask—they compel. If you are poor, they push policies and spout talking points that trap you in schools based on your zip code, regardless of whether or not it is a quality school, a good fit for your child or can even teach your son or daughter to read. The teachers’ unions pour money into the coffers of most Democrats —except the ones with the political courage to stand with parents and students —to ensure that when it’s time to vote or sign bills, they will choose the union agenda over the parent agenda. They do not believe in educational freedom.
But worse than that, they don’t practice what they preach. As they spit their “I believe in public schools” platitudes into the wind, their own choices tell a totally different story. They extricate their own children from schools they don’t deem good enough—via private school or real estate in prohibitively expensive zip codes—and then cheer when poor families are denied different and better options for their children.
There is nothing progressive — or moral— about that.