"Second, when comparing private school and public school test scores, it's like apples and oranges. Public schools have to take everyone, but private schools can be selective. It's not accurate or fair to compare the job they do"
About this Quote
“Apples and oranges” is the politician’s favorite pocketknife: a folksy phrase that cuts through complexity while quietly directing blame. Dennis Moore is arguing that raw test-score comparisons between public and private schools aren’t just sloppy; they’re rigged by design. The point isn’t that private schools are “better” or “worse,” but that they get to curate their student bodies, while public schools operate as a civic mandate. One system is optional and filtered; the other is compulsory and comprehensive. Treating their outcomes as equivalent is like grading two runners without noting that one had to carry the backpack.
The intent is defensive, but not evasive. Moore isn’t denying that public schools can underperform; he’s challenging the metric used to indict them. The subtext is a rebuke of reform narratives that rely on simple scoreboard politics: publish rankings, imply failure, justify privatization. By foregrounding selectivity, he reframes test scores as partly a measure of admissions policy and family resources, not only instructional quality.
Context matters: this is the kind of line that shows up when vouchers, charter expansion, or budget cuts are on the table and public systems are asked to “compete.” Moore’s rhetorical move is to drag the conversation back to inputs and obligations: who gets served, who gets screened out, who gets counted. It works because it sounds like common sense while smuggling in a moral claim: public schools aren’t just service providers; they’re a democratic promise with no off switch.
The intent is defensive, but not evasive. Moore isn’t denying that public schools can underperform; he’s challenging the metric used to indict them. The subtext is a rebuke of reform narratives that rely on simple scoreboard politics: publish rankings, imply failure, justify privatization. By foregrounding selectivity, he reframes test scores as partly a measure of admissions policy and family resources, not only instructional quality.
Context matters: this is the kind of line that shows up when vouchers, charter expansion, or budget cuts are on the table and public systems are asked to “compete.” Moore’s rhetorical move is to drag the conversation back to inputs and obligations: who gets served, who gets screened out, who gets counted. It works because it sounds like common sense while smuggling in a moral claim: public schools aren’t just service providers; they’re a democratic promise with no off switch.
Quote Details
| Topic | Learning |
|---|
More Quotes by Dennis
Add to List
