Diversity and the Myth of White Privilege

[stebo0728]

While that's an interesting theory, part of the appeal of a public system that doesn't have to compete for funding is that it's guaranteed to be there. If we're going to say that everyone should be given an equal opportunity and we don't mean that to be affirmative action, don't we owe it to have these systems available? Is a public school going to be able to compete with a private school? Should it be required to, when it's going to be forced to play by drastically different rules?

Ok I am going to try and tackle that set of questions as best I can. Education can be seen as any other good or service. There is a demand for it, plain and simple, and there is no need to be concerned about a supply to meet a demand as great as the one for education. The supply will be there. Will it be public schools, will it be private schools, whats it matter? The demand will be met. In order to recieve the funding in questions, the school would first have to be registered with the county, pass whatever health standards exist, and would be subject to any curriculum mandates and truancy mandates that may exist. In the same manner you ask "Why private schools" I ask you now, "Why public schools?" Those are questions to be answered by the parental model alone. Maybe I dont want my child being taught secular humanism in public schools. Maybe I dont want my child being taught Christianity or Catholicism. Say there is a large muslim populations in a particular area. Theres no quarrel about "well you cant server bacon here". Send your child to the muslim friendly school. Yes this may lead to certain types of segregation, but they will not be state enforced segregations, they will be naturally occuring segregations, similar to the ones that happen in real life. But the heart of my argument is routed in my firm belief in capitalism and competition in any market. Education is a market same as any other, it may seem more sensitive, and may even need a bit more sensitive consideration, but it is a market none the less. I promise you if this nation were not built on the blood sweat and tears of lobbyist these days, school choice would already be the norm here.

[IBCoupe]

I applaud the effort, but I don't think that education is actually comparable to any other good or service. Information breeds opportunity breeds equality, right? If you don't know how the world works, you can't operate in it, and you certainly can't hope to operate in it nearly as well as any other individual. Education is key if only for the reason that it gives us a means to get beyond the world we're born into - to pull ourselves up by our bootstraps. If this is made less available, we're walking away from equal opportunity.

Information is key. It's what keeps a libertarian from being an anarchist - arsenic sandwiches are perfectly okay so long as people know that there's arsenic in them.

[stebo0728]

I applaud the effort, but I don't think that education is actually comparable to any other good or service. Information breeds opportunity breeds equality, right? If you don't know how the world works, you can't operate in it, and you certainly can't hope to operate in it nearly as well as any other individual. Education is key if only for the reason that it gives us a means to get beyond the world we're born into - to pull ourselves up by our bootstraps. If this is made less available, we're walking away from equal opportunity.

Information is key. It's what keeps a libertarian from being an anarchist - arsenic sandwiches are perfectly okay so long as people know that there's arsenic in them.

Thats the problem when you start flirting with socialism, goods and services are goods and services, and competition is good for them all. I guess we are at odds there, and it may just stay that way. You and I have debated this same point on several different threads now so its probably safe to assume we are just built different ethically.

Im not seeing any meat in your argument that education supply will decrease if competition is introduced. Just saying it doesnt make it so, although my just saying it wont doesnt make that true either. But look at education systems in other countries where kids are actually learning. You will see competitive education.

[IBCoupe]

Not that the supply will decrease, Stebo, that it could become somewhat less available. The advantage of public education as the great equalizer is that it's free. This isn't socialism at all - information is information. Fact is fact. Truth is truth. It is not to be bought, bartered, or sold. In order for there to be equal opportunity for a successful life, there must be a basic, minimal level of free information.

I see many other countries with completely regimented, uncompetetive school systems where kids are learning, too, and arguably are learning better than we are, so I don't find any merit to that appeal.

[stebo0728]

Expound upon how you thing education would become "less available" I am not quite tuned into your vibe on that one.

Are we a regime style government? Are we socialist? Are we capitalists? What are we? I dare say we call ourselves capitalists and live like socialists. If we are going to be capitalists, lets implement free market solutions. If we are going to implement purely social programs to try and "run the world" then lets call it what it is and be bold enough to proclaim thats what we are. Dont pussyfoot around it.

[IBCoupe]

If public schools are required to compete with private schools, public schools will lose out. Public schools don't have the flexibility of Private schools in selecting and choosing who may remain at their school, and who may be admitted to begin with. If there's one big pool of money for public schools and private school vouchers, and public schools are required to foot the bill for those who require extra money to teach (say, ESL or special education, or those who simply aren't so quick on the uptake and might require additional years of schooling - the kinds of students a private school is free to dismiss for failure to perform adequately), you're going to see the quality of a public school's education fall off dramatically, as they're having potentially fewer students bodies to draw public funds, but arguably will not see a similar decrease in costs. So while a public school may not refuse to accept a student's attendance, it might not be able to actually provide an education to that student. That's what I mean by "less available." The schools won't disappear, but the education they provide might.

And we're not one thing or the other; you should know this by now. We aren't socialist, as we have private industries, and we aren't capitalist, as we have public regulations on those private industries. It's a childish notion that we must be one or the other, that fails to grasp the obvious truth that the world is neither black nor white, but instead a myriad of grays.

Nuance is the name of the game, Stebo, but one unnuanced truth remains: equal access to a basic education is a fundamental requirement for a free and fair society. It's what set apart America from the nations from which we were forged: who you are has nothing to do with who your father was, unless you wish it to.

[stebo0728]

Im not trying to say we have to be bleach white or negro black. Obviously there is a mix, but socialism and capitalism are at opposite ends of the ethical spectrum. You cant have large quantities of both kinds of policies and expect to be well grounded, and I think current events and socio-economic statuses show this. I am advocating that we move back toward the white end of the spectrum as much as possible, and implement as many free market policies as we can.

I see your point on the dimishing education and i sympathize with it, but it does not quite smell right, but I am still formulating my rebuttal. I will address that a bit later after I have thought it out.

Right now gots to go wash my nascar hat and brush my tooth and get ready for the day!

[IBCoupe]

Socialism and capitalism are arguably at opposite ends of the economic spectrum, but I'd say that's a lot different from "ethics." The world's a lot easier to comprehend when we move away from "wrong" and "right." That just feeds into the binary ideology that plagues this country and the mentality that being in the middle means being afraid of picking one side or the other. It might just be that you're all "wrong," or, if you prefer, not quite "right."

Most countries do have large quantities of both kinds of policies, this one among them. We've had it that way for quite a long time, and this last bit had less to do with socialistic policies versus capitalistic policies than it did with unenforced policies.

[heliochrome85]

If public schools are required to compete with private schools, public schools will lose out. Public schools don't have the flexibility of Private schools in selecting and choosing who may remain at their school, and who may be admitted to begin with. If there's one big pool of money for public schools and private school vouchers, and public schools are required to foot the bill for those who require extra money to teach (say, ESL or special education, or those who simply aren't so quick on the uptake and might require additional years of schooling - the kinds of students a private school is free to dismiss for failure to perform adequately), you're going to see the quality of a public school's education fall off dramatically, as they're having potentially fewer students bodies to draw public funds, but arguably will not see a similar decrease in costs. So while a public school may not refuse to accept a student's attendance, it might not be able to actually provide an education to that student. That's what I mean by "less available." The schools won't disappear, but the education they provide might.

me and my brother went through the public school system here. My parents didnt have the means to provide us with 25k a year tuition at the only secular private school here in this part of Indiana. Now that we are grown, my sister is currently in 5th grade in said school. Having attended their school functions, I can say for certain, there is absoltely no way I would send my kids to a public school. The children at her school are simply better. They have better manners, the level of education is far beyond what we got, and the level of teacher effort is much greater. growing up, i didnt believe that there was a disparity, but now having seen it, it is undoubtedly true. I have many many friends who realized that their liberal arts degrees dont mean jobs at the end of college, and went off to work for teach for america. the stories i have heard would turn your hair white. We simply as a nation, are not competitive on any academic level, and its disappointing that nothing can be done because grants, and funds are often rejected under political terms.

[IBCoupe]

Helio, that doesn't surprise me. Private schools get a lot more freedom in who they choose to let into their schools. Public schools have no freedom as to who they can let through their doors. Public schools will not only be filled with students who are incapable of affording a private school, but also with the students who are capable of affording a private school but incapable of being accepted at one. Just about the only students you won't get in a Public school are those students who aren't permitted to be there, and that's probably a good thing.

The demographics of a public school aside, the quality of the material presented is usually about the same.

[stebo0728]

Helio, that doesn't surprise me. Private schools get a lot more freedom in who they choose to let into their schools. Public schools have no freedom as to who they can let through their doors. Public schools will not only be filled with students who are incapable of affording a private school, but also with the students who are capable of affording a private school but incapable of being accepted at one. Just about the only students you won't get in a Public school are those students who aren't permitted to be there, and that's probably a good thing.

The demographics of a public school aside, the quality of the material presented is usually about the same.

And the something he said a few posts ago too ...

Im not buying the "education will no be available for some types" argument. Private schools will in some cases CATER to those types, where the demand is sufficient enough to do so. Also, never have I stated that government subsidies are out and out WRONG, they have their purpose even thought they are abused today. If a child has a greater need, and that need can be expressed and evaluated, perhaps a larger alotment of funding will required for them, and this can be determined and adjusted.

The whole point here is not to demonize public school, or to superiorize private school. Demographics in different regions produce different statistics and different results. The point is that now, public school teachers dont have to prove their merit, they dont have to earn their keep, the just have to babysit. They are glorified child care workers. Everyone here understand we speak in generalities therefore we all know their are good and bad exceptions to every rule. Teachers unions do not serve the children, their drive, as any union, as Ive said before, is high wages and less work. Teachers unions make the overwhelming majority of opposition to school choice (with IB apparently a close second) They are scared stiff of competition because they know it means they will have to actually start working for their wages, producing positive results, and worrying whether kids will come back next year or find a different source of education. Just to be clear, when I say things like this regarding teachers, my mother is a teacher, a damn good one, one of the exceptions and we discuss this all the time, and she is 100% completely in agreement on competitive education. She is not afraid to let the merit of her work stand on its own. Any teacher worth their salt can say the same.

However that sorta brings up another good point in my mind, in that the teachers are by no mean SOLELY to blame for the poor education. As helio was hinting toward, teaching seems to be the new go to burger flipper type position, the one you do if you cant manage to do anything else. If public schools were tasked with becoming competitive in the product they provide, better teachers would be hired, teachers with, I dunno, maybe degrees in what they are actually teaching? If administrators fail to keep a school in line, out the door they go.

Imagine if people on food stamps were told that they could only spend them at government controlled grocery stores, and those stores didnt have to be competitive, didnt have to hire competent people to be competitive, and the places ended up as slums, imagine the outcry of people there. Ok now find some sly way to say thats a different story. Its not, its the same damn thing. America = capitalism = free market = competition is good = everyone wins!

[heliochrome85]

Helio, that doesn't surprise me. Private schools get a lot more freedom in who they choose to let into their schools. Public schools have no freedom as to who they can let through their doors. Public schools will not only be filled with students who are incapable of affording a private school, but also with the students who are capable of affording a private school but incapable of being accepted at one. Just about the only students you won't get in a Public school are those students who aren't permitted to be there, and that's probably a good thing.

The demographics of a public school aside, the quality of the material presented is usually about the same.

no doubt. but ultimately, you have states like Ohio who put the budget of a school system in the hands of the residents of the country by making it tied to property taxes. naturally, no one wants to vote for property tax increases, and therefore the school systems budget shrinks. as a result, you have classes that are packed with kids, without sufficient supplies or teachers to handle it. my school system was well off, and throughout highschool, it couldnt afford the cost of chalk for the class rooms. the same with paper. the same with staff. with every year, the class size increased, but the budget shrank. my parents put my sister in public schools for the first couple of years, and then made the switch. so im kinda aware of how bad things are now, compared to how bad they were just a few years ago when i was in school.

[heliochrome85]

Helio, that doesn't surprise me. Private schools get a lot more freedom in who they choose to let into their schools. Public schools have no freedom as to who they can let through their doors. Public schools will not only be filled with students who are incapable of affording a private school, but also with the students who are capable of affording a private school but incapable of being accepted at one. Just about the only students you won't get in a Public school are those students who aren't permitted to be there, and that's probably a good thing.

The demographics of a public school aside, the quality of the material presented is usually about the same.

And the something he said a few posts ago too ...

Im not buying the "education will no be available for some types" argument. Private schools will in some cases CATER to those types, where the demand is sufficient enough to do so. Also, never have I stated that government subsidies are out and out WRONG, they have their purpose even thought they are abused today. If a child has a greater need, and that need can be expressed and evaluated, perhaps a larger alotment of funding will required for them, and this can be determined and adjusted.

The whole point here is not to demonize public school, or to superiorize private school. Demographics in different regions produce different statistics and different results. The point is that now, public school teachers dont have to prove their merit, they dont have to earn their keep, the just have to babysit. They are glorified child care workers. Everyone here understand we speak in generalities therefore we all know their are good and bad exceptions to every rule. Teachers unions do not serve the children, their drive, as any union, as Ive said before, is high wages and less work. Teachers unions make the overwhelming majority of opposition to school choice (with IB apparently a close second) They are scared stiff of competition because they know it means they will have to actually start working for their wages, producing positive results, and worrying whether kids will come back next year or find a different source of education. Just to be clear, when I say things like this regarding teachers, my mother is a teacher, a damn good one, one of the exceptions and we discuss this all the time, and she is 100% completely in agreement on competitive education. She is not afraid to let the merit of her work stand on its own. Any teacher worth their salt can say the same.

However that sorta brings up another good point in my mind, in that the teachers are by no mean SOLELY to blame for the poor education. As helio was hinting toward, teaching seems to be the new go to burger flipper type position, the one you do if you cant manage to do anything else. If public schools were tasked with becoming competitive in the product they provide, better teachers would be hired, teachers with, I dunno, maybe degrees in what they are actually teaching? If administrators fail to keep a school in line, out the door they go.

Imagine if people on food stamps were told that they could only spend them at government controlled grocery stores, and those stores didnt have to be competitive, didnt have to hire competent people to be competitive, and the places ended up as slums, imagine the outcry of people there. Ok now find some sly way to say thats a different story. Its not, its the same damn thing. America = capitalism = free market = competition is good = everyone wins!

how do you feel about states who refuse to even attempt to qualify for President Obama's Race to the Top Education Grants? Under the program, the states that do the most to reform their education systems, recieve very hefty grants from the Federal Government. Texas refused to apply this year, even though it could have recieved up to $700 million for its school systems.
http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/edi ... 16477.html

[IBCoupe]

You continue to equate education with other goods and services. It's really not that similar. Education is the tool through which we get out of poverty. Welfare is the tool through which we survive poverty. There should be more outrage over schools in disrepair than there should be over welfare queens. We need to be absolutely clear: education is teaching (no pun intended) a man to fish, and welfare is giving a man a fish.

And, arguably, if we've got studies that show that public schools perform just as well (and in some areas: better) as schools where teachers, as you would posit, do have to prove their worth, haven't we just proved their worth?

[stebo0728]

You are correct, I do, and will continue to label education as a service, manipulable as any other good or service. On that we may disagree, but on that ground I will continue to stand. Just because its a more "sensitive" good or service does not distunguish it from standard, time proven market activity. The fact that people in our society today have lost sight and faith in the market system has blame placed squarely on our slide toward social opression. It has been decided among the masses of this nation that opression of the upper class is more acceptable than poverty in the lower class, even self made, self sustained poverty.

Additionally - I leave you with the notion that:

The rich get rich by acting rich, and the poor stay poor by acting poor.

[AZhitman]

Fake it til you make it. There's something to that.

Oh, and "if you want to be the boss, you've gotta dress / speak / write / interact like the boss".

Or, you can "express your individualism" at work and remain in the mailroom.

[IBCoupe]

And while I appreciate those sentiments, I'm curious: how is one expected to behave appropriately? Or rather, how is one to know what defines "appropriate?" How does a "boss" look? How does a "boss" act?

This is what's different about information. It's inherently different from "goods" or "services" because you literally can't get by without it.

Now, is it possible to get that information from alternate sources, like good parenting? Certainly. But then we're right back at people being limited by the origins of their birth, something that this country really doesn't believe in.

[stebo0728]

This is what's different about information. It's inherently different from "goods" or "services" because you literally can't get by without it.

There is the nugget of our disharmony. Heathcare is getting the same treatment now, and is doomed to the same grave as education.

[wingFeather]

Obama has proven that throwing money at a problem does not necessarily fix it.

[stebo0728]

Now, is it possible to get that information from alternate sources, like good parenting? Certainly. But then we're right back at people being limited by the origins of their birth, something that this country really doesn't believe in.

No one is truly limited by the origin of their birth, at least not in this country.

I would expect you agree with Hillary Clinton in saying "it takes a village to raise a child"

[audtatious]

I would expect you agree with Hillary Clinton in saying "it takes a village to raise a child"

I thought today it was "it takes a teacher to teach a child as parents are too stupid.......but if the child still has problems then all bets are off and the parents are at fault"

[IBCoupe]

No one is truly limited by the origin of their birth, at least not in this country.

Due, in no small part, to the fact that everyone has access to free, basic education. Without it, the origin of one's birth has a great deal more effect on one's prospects. This is how feudal societies survived for as long as they did. It's how middle eastern societies maintain their power - restrict access to an education, and you restrict movement away from the status quo.

And while I'm not sure I agree entirely with Mrs. Clinton in what could be interpreted as a belief that it's necessary for a village to raise a child, I don't quibble with the idea that it happens anyways. I'm not sure that it's impossible to raise a child without a village, but children grow and develop, not just by their parents, but by their surroundings, by their fellow children, and by the adults they encounter - directly or indirectly.

It may not require a village to raise a child, but it usually works out that way. That might have been what Clinton was saying.

[AZhitman]

^ Nicely done.

As a parent, I don't NEED the "village". But it's nice to have, and it makes my job as a parent easier, and the child's learning experiences all the richer.

[audtatious]

It doesn't take a village, it takes a strong parent to say "no" and to paddle little Johnnies azz when he misbehaves.