Yesterday, the Texas Tribune published a survey of where Texas' elected officials send their kids to school. After asking every member of the the State Senate, State House, and State Board of Education, they found that:
- 14 percent either did not have children old enough to attend school or did not have them at all.
- At 35 percent compared to Republicans' 7 percent, Democrats were more likely to either have kids too young for school or no kids at all.
- Democrats and Republicans, at roughly 6 and 7 percent respectively, have about the same amount of children in private schools.
Before I go further, I should first point out that when I initially saw and read this study, I voiced strong frustrations (publicly, on Twitter) about the Texas Tribune's decision to do this survey at all. I unfairly questioned their integrity as a news organization, slamming their entire purpose just for one article and one survey. Constructive criticism and feedback is useful, and news organizations -- as well as elected officials, bloggers, and anyone else who engages in the public process of government -- should not be immune to critique. However, the rant I went on was not constructive. It was destructive, dismissive, and overall just pretty dumb. Republicans may slam and attack the media unfairly, but that's not a practice I ever hope to emulate, and I am genuinely sorry for what I wrote yesterday.
What riled my anger was the nature of the survey. The Tribune, in explaining why they conducted the survey, said:
Tribune readers, wondering what was personally at stake for the state's education policy makers, asked us to check where lawmakers send their children to school. We obliged, and posed that question to all 181 members of the Legislature and 15 members of the State Board of Education.
The issue of "what was personally at stake" strikes me as not a good enough reason to bring children into the public policy conversation. I could see someone raising hell about it in a campaign for political purposes, but that's not the context the information was presented in. And while everything may be on the table in a campaign, the purpose -- electoral victory -- is at least a little clearer. One thing I learned from the 2010 election is that everything is on the table and nothing is sacred, even if some things (like children who have no choice and often little impact in the lives their parents choose) should be.
Lacking that electoral context, I'm not sure if it matters where lawmakers send their kids to school, but I'm open to hearing other thoughts and ideas on the subject -- if there are any out there. I'm going to write up my own personal thoughts on the subject in the comment section below. |
