I am the product of an entirely public school education: elementary school, high school, college, law school. Granted, it was mostly a white, upper-middle-class public. But still.
My grandmother was a public school special education and gym teacher. A half-century later, several of her former special education students attended her funeral. My mother was a public school art and English teacher until the day she died. Her students and coworkers turned the funeral home receiving room into a replica of her classroom, complete with her colorful collection of toys, posters, art supplies, and Ray Bradbury books. After a brief stint as a park ranger, my sister, too, heeded the sacred call, becoming a junior high art teacher in a public school in Colorado.
I get that our public education system is broken. My sister, who is one of the most amazing teachers I have ever met, finally quit when her lower income school district forced her to take more students than she could effectively supervise and educate. But last night, my faith was renewed in the flawed system that raised me.
I attended the first annual Mayor’s Cup, a high school debate competition organized by the Dallas Urban Debate Alliance and hosted by Mayor Mike Rawlings and Harlan Crow in the debate chamber at Old Parkland. Modeled after Monticello, the place is insanely spectacular and Harry Potterish, with carved owls, Greek columns, and Latin quotations on the wood-paneled walls. (If you ever have a chance to attend an event there, go; the next event should be the Miller Center’s rousing discussion of President Trump’s First 100 Days on May 3.)
Four DISD students were tasked with using a cross-examination debate structure to address the question: do education vouchers leave the neediest children behind?
Kathy Nguyen (North Dallas High School) and Victor Pena (Thomas Jefferson High School) represented the affirmative team, while Ricardo Rodriguez (W.T. White High School) and Sophie Rahman (Science and Engineering Magnet) represented the negative side.
The four students were remarkable. Polished, with significantly better posture and public speaking composure than myself, they passionately argued their respective cases.
The pro-voucher team argued that private schools are more “efficient” than public, choice is good, and the Trumpian public-schools-couldn’t-be-any-worse-so-what-have-you-got-to-lose. The anti-voucher team argued that market competition fails when it comes to education, and that if even more funds are sucked out of the public school system by vouchers, it will just perpetuate the divide between rich and well-educated and poor and poorly educated, because no one is going to build quality, private schools in the private school deserts of Oak Cliff and South Dallas.
When challenged on cross examination with the question, “Who is going to pay for private schools in South Dallas?” Rodriguez replied, without hesitation, “The people in this audience,” getting a big—but wry—laugh from the assembled attorneys, hedge fund managers, civic leaders (including Council Member Sandy Greyson, in addition to Mayor Rawlings), and corporate executives.
At the end of the night, the judges (Dallas Urban Debate founder Craig Budner, attorney Leon Carter, AT&T VP Angela Ross, and Anne Wicks, Director of Education Reform at the George W. Bush Institute) all enthusiastically praised the competitors. The one point I took issue with was the group’s emphasis of Rahman’s “charming” smile. While it was, indeed, charming, it demeaned Rahman’s true strength—her oratorical mastery. And it begged the question why no one complimented Pena on his equally charming and show-stopping coiffure.
The judges ended up deciding 3-1 in favor of the anti-voucher team, while the audience decided 38-34 in favor of the pro-voucher team.
Anne Wicks was left with the final word. She noted that although both teams did an amazing job, she, on principle, could not find for the team that cited research by the NEA. She preferred the research of Dan Patrick and the Heritage Foundation. And Rahman’s smile.
I would have liked Rahman to have had the last word. And to hear not her practiced and assigned argument, but what she really thought about the future of public school education. Because that young woman is going somewhere.
