The difference between liberal and conservative on the education issue is similar to many of their differences. When liberals face a problem they seek to solve it, when conservatives face a problem they seek to eliminate it. The liberals have a harder task in trying to reform something whereas the conservatives have the easier task because all they have to do is sell the idea. Both can be disastrous. The conservatives are dissatisfied with public education so their solution is to withdraw funds from it to fund their kids in private schools. Of course this would destroy publicly funded schools as removing funding from an already problem filled system would destroy it. The ideal that you make public schools more competitive by diminishing it is ignoring all the problems that infest public schools. For every kid whose parent, along with a voucher, pulled their kid from public into private there would be many more that the voucher would never be enough to help. The only competition that is created here is between parents, who could make the move and who couldn't. The problem would only be solved for those that could make it.
And that brings us back to the whole conservative/liberal thing. Liberals try to solve/fix, not always successful, conservatives when faced with a broken system seek to eliminate or maintain the status quo. Welfare broke? Fix or eliminate. Social Security broke? Fix, eliminate or status quo [Private accounts would destroy the current system]. Health care system broke? Fix, eliminate or status quo. Wall Street broke? Fix, eliminate or status quo.
The end result is that little gets done because conservatives are afraid of 'fixes'. Either keep the status quo or eliminate the system. Look at health care reform. In spite of all the evidence the system was broken the preference for the status quo led the conservatives to block solutions. Can you imagine how much better bill we would have if conservatives had beaten the liberals to the punch with a real alternative to the final bill passed? But instead they continue to be obstructionist in the face of problems with the status quo.
Doug, I agree with your references to proper history, but aren't you in Texas? The history books we have now are not tainted because they are politically correct. The ultra conservative Texas school boards control what the publishing industry provides for the whole country so how about working on them.
Great points, Glenn. And, you are correct on the philosophical differences, but off a little on understanding the reasons.
Let's use your education example. The public system has failed, since the federal government took it over, it's graduation rates, test scores, and over all performance has been deemed dismal, at best. So, middle class tax payers fund and use this service most of all, and have tried to display our dissatisfaction. We see superintendents getting paid millions, and not improving the schools. We see a bloated bureaucracy, with no discipline or responsibility. The only recourse to an unresponsive bureaucrat is to cut off the one thing they hold dearest... funding.
Exactly! and replace it with....anyone, anyone.... cutting off the funding does what? Its not a solution its just a reaction.
Actions rewarded is action repeated. Cutting off the funding, giving parents a choice to send their kids to a better school, is the solution. If a teacher loses his job because there aren't enough students to justify her classroom, then the message would be received.
Look at it this way. Let's say you own the only restaurant in town, and have been providing mediocre food for decades. The people continue to come back because the next place is miles away. All of sudden, someone opens a restaurant across the street from you, and they serve great food. People would flock to the new restaurant, forcing the old restaurant to improve or go out of business. It works every time.
Hell, you could even make it to where kids are allowed to cross school lines, and choose the school they want to go to. Imagine having a school that has an innovative principal and teachers that push the kids and the envelope. It would excel in form, and kids would flock to it, forcing the bad school to catch up or close down.
What is the goal? To have a better school, producing educated kids that are prepared for life. If it takes teachers getting fired, administrators getting demoted, or the apple cart getting upset... I don't care, I paid for a decent education for my kids, and I expect to receive that.
I understand the concept of competition, but your solution doesn't address everyone. I know kids who get vouchers and their parents are extremely happy, but they got in the program through a lottery. There are many more kids that didn't win the lottery. Are you going to require all private schools to accept all kids? Since they now get and want the cream of the crop I don't see them buying into that. Are you going to fund transportation for kids? Across school districts? Are you going to bail schools out in mid-term? Sure you'll have subsidies for the lowest income but working middle class families won't qualify, make too much but not yet rich, and they will still be stuck in public/neighborhood schools.
There's no way to level the playing field between public and private schools but that wouldn't be the point would it, otherwise the debate would be on making public schools competitive within the public domain where now the whole point is about transferring, a sort of funding redistribution, funding to private schools.
I don't have all the answers but if the competition thing was the answer I would have to see where it fixes public schools not subsidies private schools.
For the last 30 years, the federal government has dumped billions of dollars into the education system, and it has still failed miserably.
As far as the lottery goes, that means more people want to join. So expand the program, fund it appropriately, and let the free market improve the education. Transportation can be solved easily, as a huge majority of cities have mass transportation already in place.
I expect kids to qualify, and not all kids will. But, perhaps the public schools can be used for vocational training. If a parent really wants his kid to excel, if a kid really wants an opportunity, both would do what it takes to qualify. Those that don't want to put themselves out and work for an education, well, the world needs laborers and democrats.
If my kids, who both excel in school, are being held back because of disruptive students or a slow curriculum, then I should be able to give my kids the opportunity they would otherwise not receive... an unfettered opportunity for education.
Like I said, I don't have the answers. I agree that Public education, for the most part, is failing, but as we started of with the premise of solving a problem or eliminating it, I still prefer a solution. A solution that has the potential to work for everyone not just for some.
Mass transit is not adequate in most cities [its a joke in Indy] and non-existent in rural and small cities which also have public school problems.
Leaving an underclass destined to 'vocational' training, especially as we move more so to a service industry destines the disadvantaged to sub-par education and career choices. There are way to many bad or inadequate parents which place their own kids at an early disadvantage in the current system as well as the system you advocate, but under your system the 'good' kid who has the potential to overcome his 'bad' parent would more likely be destined to that vocational training. And at what age would that future laborer be diverted onto his career path?
That good kid with the bad parent, or critical circumstance wouldn't stand a chance, would never get the chance to encounter that one good teacher that might make a difference.
The idea, and the solution, should involve giving every kid the opportunity, as you say, to '...an unfettered opportunity for education.'
Have a nice day.
You are helping me demonstrate the entire problem with nationalized (fill in the blank). The federal government just needs to quit accepting money for a service they cannot provide, and disband the Education Department.
There is no single solution that will work for the entire country, that kind of thinking promotes lowest common denominator legislation, where as kids that achieve are grouped with those that don't want to, holding back the kids that achieve. This is what I meant by unfettered, if a kid can finish the curriculum by his freshmen year, and score well enough on the SAT by his sophomore year, then the school's bureaucracy should be the last thing in his way.
But, as I have said many times, the progressive and/ or governments way of dealing with problems is a one size fits all "solution". Why not fund a day care type of school, that strives to teach the basics, enough for the kid to function in real life. And, if the kids want to cut up in class, it won't effect those that want to be there and get something out of it.
In your scenario it appears to me that you seem to believe that at some defining point it becomes apparent which kids are clearly never going to be more than what they are at a particular moment. How you pinpoint that moment in their lives, and how you thin the herd if that moment is not simultaneous for everyone is beyond me. Kids are not little adults that have fully developed personalities which allows them to be segregated into groups of the 'will make it' or 'won't make it' system of schools. What parent, including you and I, would stand for a school system which professed to determined that at an early age.
Isn't just 'disband the education department' a one size fits none solution. The original premise of the discussion was solving a problem versus eliminating the problem. Disbanding the education department solves nothing, it just leaves a void. After you've done that, then what. The lack of a 'then what' is what continually paints the current conservatives as obstructionist.
In the end ending welfare and entitlements just leaves a void, obstructing health care reform in 92 left a void as the free market increased its abuses instead of policing itself, in 2010 the obstructionism led to a in cohesive bill that will be further weakened by 'repeal', trying to destroy regulations instead of striking a balance led to deregulation of the savings and loan industry, banking industry, credit card industry housing and mortgage, wall street and energy. What did that get us? Enron, Tycom,the Keating Five, AIG, Goldman Sachs, etc., etc.,, etc., and the current recession.
I don't want to throw money around anymore than you do, but I think the first step to smaller government is more efficient government and when only one side is coming up with ideals, good and bad, and the other side only wants to hack away at pet peeves the best minds on both sides are held captive to the combat at hand.
You say that trying to find a single solution for the entire country is lowest common denominator thinking, I don't think I'm the one who has suggested that, but, I'll take the lowest common denominator if it gives us a point for working towards a solution to the problem, but you'll never get me to agree to accepting either the status quo or the process of elimination over trying to find a workable solution.
from: http://www.addictinginfo.com/apps/blog/show/4342595-proof-that-the-word-liberal-is-not-a-bad-thing
No comments:
Post a Comment