Private school for your kids = you are a bad person...

[billc]

Apparently, if you take money that you are allowed to keep after the government extracts it's pound of flesh, and use it to send your kids to a private school so they can get...you know...educated, you are a bad person...

http://www.slate.com/articles/doubl...ly_bad_people_send_their_kids_to_private.html

You are a bad person if you send your children to private school. Not bad like murderer bad—but bad like ruining-one-of-our-nation’s-most-essential-institutions-in-order-to-get-what’s-best-for-your-kid bad. So, pretty bad.

I am not an education policy wonk: I’m just judgmental. But it seems to me that if every single parent sent every single child to public school, public schools would improve. This would not happen immediately. It could take generations. Your children and grandchildren might get mediocre educations in the meantime, but it will be worth it, for the eventual common good. (Yes, rich people might cluster. But rich people will always find a way to game the system: That shouldn’t be an argument against an all-in approach to public education any more than it is a case against single-payer health care.)

What a moron...

Larry correia takes this article apart...

http://larrycorreia.wordpress.com/2013/08/30/fisking-slate-over-public-schools/

Apparently. But please, Allison, educate us poor knuckle draggers why we should put the future of failing liberal institutions based on outdated philosophies dating back to the industrial revolution over the welfare of our children.

I am not an education policy wonk: I’m just judgmental.

Well you’re a liberal, so that goes without saying.

But it seems to me that if every single parent sent every single child to public school, public schools would improve.

And I can’t wait to hear how you figured this part out. Especially since everybody is always whining about overcrowded classrooms, so when a kid gets pulled out and sent to private school, you just freed up more public school resources, and *gasp* the parent paying for private school is still paying taxes which pay for the dumpy public school… but hey, I’m getting ahead of myself.

This would not happen immediately. It could take generations. Your children and grandchildren might get mediocre educations in the meantime, but it will be worth it, for the eventual common good.

Wait… Let me get this right… I need to needlessly screw up my children and grandchildren’s chances in the hope that maybe, just maybe, our ****** public schools might be decent in forty or fifty years. And this is the high note she picked to open her essay with. Holy ****.
Yes, comrades, sacrifice your offspring for the common good… Sure, that sounds bug nuts to most parents who don’t routinely put cigarette butts out on their children’s skin, but don’t worry, folks. Allison is just getting warmed up.

That shouldn’t be an argument against an all-in approach to public education any more than it is a case against single-payer health care.)

Well, obviously Allison is in favor of single-payer health care (in the same essay where she talks about another government run system being hopelessly broken) because this time it will totally be better.

So, how would this work exactly? It’s simple!

A magical leprechaun will ride a unicorn down a rainbow and shoot awesome free healthcare out of its ***? Oh wait, we’ve moved back to the subject of how she wants to screw over decent parents again. Sorry.

Everyone needs to be invested in our public schools in order for them to get better. Not just lip-service investment, or property tax investment, but real flesh-and-blood-offspring investment.

Uh… What about all of the people who went to crappy public schools or whose kids already were in crappy public schools who fled to the private sector, or who would if they could afford to? And I can only imagine how much you despise those wretched home schoolers. Oh yeah, they’re murderer bad too, but not groovy Che murderer bad, just to be clear.

Your local school stinks but you don’t send your child there?

Hell lady, I actually MOVED because of how mediocre the local schools were. I could see they were sucking the life out of my children. I’ve got brilliant, imaginative kids with genius level IQs, and they were sullenly getting terrible grades and hating education because they were trapped in a dreary prison cell of a room dominated by mentally imbalanced rage monkeys and pill popping zombies, all under the supervision of a lazy ***, phoning it in until she could retire, teacher’s union parasite who thought the best way to deal with gifted kids was to give them tons and tons of useless brain dead busy work.

 

[Sukerkin]

Though I agree with the basic point, why, in the American arena at least, is it not possible to find sources that are less smeared with the unpleasant froth of over-invested-political-monotheism?

It could be an interesting discourse on the nature of education and the effects of wealth/class disparity in a theoretically free social structure but that is impossible if you start it off with another Libtard semi-rant.

 

[billc]

The basic tone of the article warrants Correia's response...you are a bad person if you send your kids to private school...really? The public schools are really bad...and 40% of public school teachers send their kids to private schools, as do all the politicians who run public education...but if you take extra money from what you earn working everyday of your life...and it is extra money because the politicians extract taxes from you to fund the public school system wether your kids attend or not...you are a bad person...really? And that attitude doesn't deserve some hard comments?

It could be an interesting discourse on the nature of education and the effects of wealth/class disparity in a theoretically free social structure but that is impossible if you start it off with another Libtard semi-rant.

Really? Just start discussing the article the way you want Sukerkin, you know I have no problems with what people post on my threads...unless they use personal attacks or insults...so lead the discussion in any direction you want...this is just a starting point...make it what you will...

 

[Sukerkin]

I agree with the basic premise, which might surprise you, but, for me at least, a response to a bad article shouldn't be an equally bad one. It sets an awful tone to begin a discourse on and it colours everyones responses accordingly.

I, in all seriousness suggest, that if debating political points is where you get your internet fun from then why not have a think about the issues and write an OP based on those, inviting others to contribute in agreement or otherwise? I am sure you'd find your threads more of a source of entertainment and information than the slanging matches that they, sadly, usually end up being.

The short paragraph you wrote above, for example, told me more about what you thought on the matter and encouraged me to respond more readily than the combative stuff linked in the OP.

If the public schools are so awful, surely the answer is to improve the public schools? An educated work-force is the source of all wealth in an economy and the (in practise) trend we have had on both sides of the Pond towards the creation of a permanent underclass is a death knell for our economic and political futures.

Likewise, an educated elite, where your social position is determined by what school you went to, is a very bad thing for a society if there are no counterbalances to it. That is doubly so if access to the 'better' system is gated by wealth and social position as it ossifies the social structure - like all inbreeding, that too is a very bad thing.

 

[billc]

One of the major problems in our school system here in the states is the power relationship between the teacher's unions and politicians. The teacher's unions contribute vast sums of money to the democrat party, and those politicians prevent real reforms of the education system. Most people here in the states support some form of voucher program. These would allow poor parents the ability to take their allotment of education tax dollars to the school they feel would best educate their children creating strong incentives for the public schools to improve...or lose money...which threatens the teachers and so the teachers unions use their power to fight vouchers. Even when you exclude religious schools from the voucher option, which is dumb since federal dollars already go to religious colleges, and only propose to allow poor parents to choose between the various public schools to send their kids to, the unions use their power to kill it.

For example...Washington D.C. had a successful voucher program...the parents and kids loved it and these kids were actually able to go to the school where the President and other politicians send their kids, in particular the Sidwell Friends school...When obama became President...he ended the voucher program because the teacher's unions hated the program. So now those kids in D.C., where the public schools are horrendous, are now no longer able to use vouchers to get a good education.

This slate article is important because it is one of the "thousand cuts," that that side of the political arena uses to smear opponents. I have posted about this elsewhere, where constant, little attacks, made against their opponents eventually permeates the culture and helps set the rules of engagement on these issues in the political arena. This tone in this article will eventually be picked up by hollywood and by other journalists...eventually you will see television shows and movies that insinuate this idea into their stories, and journalists will write more articles saying you are bad if you send your kids to private schools...and the meme will be created that it isn't just a choice to send your kids to private schools, but if you do send your kids to private schools you are the worst sort of bad person. This is how the battle is eventually lost and why this tactic needs to be dealt with decisively when it is used.

Does this mean that people will stop sending their kids to private schools, of course not. That is the best way to educate your kids after all. It will, however, give the opposition to school reform another weapon to brow beat school reformers with and allow them to undermine the school reform argument...

For example...a politician wants to make a reform that the teacher's union doesn't like...the press, hollywood entertainers and educators say that all he wants to do is support private schools for the rich at the expense of poor inner city kids...and because the meme is already out their that people who send their kids to private schools are actually bad, mean people, because they send their kids to private schools, this reformer will already be fighting an uphill battle for change before he even gets started...

 

[billc]

I encountered this sort of argument before when I was in college. There was a guy in one of my classes who believed that middle class white people moved to the suburbs because they wanted to keep minorities from getting a good education...he really believed this. There was a woman in our group who was returning to school after her kids had gotten old enough to free up her time, so I turned to her and asked her, " Did you move to the suburbs and enroll your kids in a suburban school so minority kids wouldn't get a good education?" She had this shocked look on her face, and said the reason they put their kids in the school where they were is because they were good schools, and it had nothing to do with minority kids or inner city schools...it had never entered her mind to even think that way. The problem was this guy isn't the only moron who thinks the way he did. This slate column is just another example of this way of thinking.

Here is an article on the ending of the voucher program in D.C.

http://washington.cbslocal.com/2012/02/14/obama-budget-would-end-d-c-school-vouchers/

WASHINGTON (CBSDC/AP) — President Barack Obama’s budget proposal includes no new funding for a private school voucher program for D.C.

students​

​

.
The nation’s capital is the only jurisdiction where federal tax dollars are used to subsidize private-school tuition. Needy students can receive up to $12,000 a year to attend private

schools​

​

of their choice.
At the Obama administration’s urging, Congress agreed in 2009 to phase out the program. But it was revived last year as part of a budget deal with House Republicans.

House Speaker John Boehner is a big proponent of the voucher program and is likely to try to get the funding reinstated. Students already participating in the program would be allowed to continue under Obama’s budget.

Many Democrats say the money would be better spent on public schools.

 

[billc]

Here is a look at the slate piece from the Wall Street Journal...

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887324463604579043031360151914.html

The attention-grabbing "bad person" formulation is presumably facetious, but the underlying argument--that all parents ought to enroll their children in public schools--is not. Conservatives frequently accuse elite liberals, including President Obama and his most recent Democratic predecessor, of hypocrisy for proclaiming their devotion to public education while shielding their own children from it. Benedikt's argument is consistent with that criticism.
But that is not to say that it is logically sound.

If Benedikt's argument is purely a matter of numbers, it is wholly implausible. According to the National Center for Education Statistics, U.S. public-school enrollment in prekindergarten through 12th grade was 49.4 million in 2009. Private-school enrollment was 5.5 million. There is no reason to think that public schools would be any better if only their enrollment grew by 11%. In fact, public-school enrollment increased by some 25% between 1985 and 2009 without, so far as we are aware, any of the kind of generational improvement Benedikt expects. (Private school enrollment declined during the same period, but by fewer than 100,000 students--so that most of the change was owing to demographics.)

The assumption behind treating education as a public good is that in general, educating children makes them more successful adults, and successful people are more valuable to society than unsuccessful ones. If that is true, then consigning your child to a mediocre education is harmful to the common good, because it reduces his likelihood of success--which can mean everything from becoming a gainfully employed taxpayer to discovering a cure for cancer.

 

[Sukerkin]

Is it not something of a case of seeing one 'meme' as being false and one true?

In your post #5 above you cogently outlined a problem that, to an outsiders ear, sounds rather on the paranoid side i.e. that there is a nationwide media conspiracy to manipulate the minds of all into believing that improving the education system is bad.

In post#6 you outline and dismiss an equally paranoid line of reasoning that there is a conspiracy to lock out those below the middle classes from getting a good education.

Now is either true or are neither true?

I think we need some evidence either way - is there a pool of data we can dig into to determine if there are any patterns to be observed? Or are we stuck with having to take the word of internet pundits who say they interpret the evidence for us? There must be some reliable sources we can look at somewhere? I know it is likely to be hard in America because of the fragmentation of things between the individual States and the Federal parts of the government; it's easier (tho still not easy) over here because the Civil Service tends to have overwatch on everything and that leads to greater cohesion.

 

[billc]

In your post #5 above you cogently outlined a problem that, to an outsiders ear, sounds rather on the paranoid side i.e. that there is a nationwide media conspiracy to manipulate the minds of all into believing that improving the education system is bad.

Hmmm...well, democrats, the media and entertainment think that school vouchers are bad, you can look at how the democrats oppose them through legislation and how journalists cover the stories of vouchers, and then look at entertainers when they talk about education...all three will support even more spending on the public school system even when more spending doesn't lead to better grades or outcomes.

It is less a conspiracy rather than a way of thinking that belongs to people who view central control of education as a good thing vs. people who think that more control should be allowed at the local and state level.

As to post #6...would you or anyone you know put kids into private school specifically to keep minorities from getting a good education? However, there is a monetary incentive for teacher's unions and democrat politicians to keep kids in public schools. The teacher's unions know that many private schools are non-union, which means they don't get dues from those teachers. The democrat politicians get vast sums of money from teachers thru their union dues...so less dues, means less power to the unions and less money to democrat politicians.

There are some conservatives who oppose vouchers...mainly because they don't want the vouchers to be used by the government to use them as a way to get their hooks into the private schools...government money means government strings...but the fiercest opponents of vouchers are the democrats and their teacher union allies.

 

[Sukerkin]

Obviously you are immersed in your culture and I am not, so I can't comment on what you are saying about vouchers and their treatment in the wider media. Perhaps some others here on MT, the members are mostly American after all, can spread the net a bit wider for us and provide supporting or countervailing viewpoints?

I concur that the second 'conspiracy' is more simple to dismiss as you can put yourself in the shoes of people making such a choice. I can see people not wanting to put their kids in low achieving schools in high crime neighbourhoods and so on and that might give the impression of a conscious conspiracy when in fact is an effect of circumstances rather than an affecter of circumstance.

 

[billc]

A look at surveys on school vouchers...

http://news.heartland.org/newspaper-article/2000/07/01/polls-show-majority-support-vouchers

Although the national teacher unions and their state affiliates are adamantly opposed to school vouchers, their opposition does not appear to reflect the wishes of union members or their families. The poll showed that 57 percent of respondents who have a teacher in their immediate family support vouchers--virtually the same margin (58 percent) as respondents with no teacher in the family.

While support for vouchers was strong (64 percent) among respondents who described themselves as conservatives, a significant majority of self-described liberals also favored vouchers (57 percent). Minority respondents favored vouchers more than white respondents by a margin of 64 to 58 percent. Respondents with children favored vouchers more than non-parents by a margin of 61 to 58 percent.

Fifty-seven percent of respondents supported making vouchers available to children enrolled in schools posting a 50 percent failure rate on the state achievement test. However, even more respondents--two out of three, or 67 percent--supported making vouchers available to poor parents without regard to the performance of school their child attends.

When asked which school they would choose if cost were no obstacle, only 37 percent of respondents favored public schools, including charter schools, while 55 percent favored private or parochial schools. When asked the reasons for their choice, respondents ranked quality of the learning environment as the most important factor.

Overall, respondents had a very favorable attitude toward school choice and its likely effect on education. Sixty-eight percent agreed that giving parents choice forces schools to be accountable to their customers and would therefore improve the quality of education. Sixty-five percent agreed that forcing schools to compete for students would give them an incentive to be more cost-effective and more efficient.

 

[billc]

The political side of the voucher fight...the House, controlled by republicans, wants to fund vouchers for D.C. kids, the democrats oppose it...

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2011/mar/30/house-votes-to-restart-dc-school-vouchers/

The House passed a measure Wednesday to revive a school-voucher program for the District of Columbia despite opposition from the mayor, the District’s congressional delegate, teachers and the White House.
The move also sets up a key test for the administration, as House Republican leaders have hinted that they may go along with President Obama’s planned overhaul of the No Child Left Behind Act — an

education​

​

reform law signed by President George W. Bush — if the White House accepts the voucher bill.

Hmmm...I thought the Republicans weren't willing to compromise...hmmm...perhaps that is a false meme as well...

 

[billc]

As to the success of the D.C. program before it was stopped...

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/06/22/AR2010062204487.html

The final report on the D.C. Opportunity Scholarship Program was released Tuesday by the U.S. Department of Education's Institute for Education Sciences. Although there was no conclusive evidence that the program affected student test scores, researchers found important benefits in graduation rates and parental satisfaction. The graduation rate for students who were offered scholarships was 82 percent, compared with 70 percent for those not in the program. Few things are more critical to future success than graduation, so it's hard to discount the difference that vouchers made for the low-income students participating in the program.

More than 3,700 students -- most of them black or Hispanic -- have been awarded scholarships, which provide up to $7,500 for private-school tuition, since the program's start in 2004. Students currently enrolled, an estimated 1,300, will be allowed to continue until they graduate from high school. But for reasons that have more to do with opposition from teachers unions than what's good for children, no new students are being accepted. Education Secretary Arne Duncan last year signaled the program's demise by rescinding scholarships already offered, and congressional Democrats refused to reauthorize the program.

 

[granfire]

I am not reading bill's exploits...

Alas: bad schools take more than one set of parents to fix them.
Bad schools are bad because the majority of parents don't give a hoot.
Yes, seen one of those from the inside. When there are 500 kids in the school and only 5 parents show up (as in people, not pairs, and always the same) you can't make head waves.
When half of the students come from the Ghetto, the other half from the poor part of town (that's why the ghetto is there in the first place) you can't make head waves.

So you have a downward spiral, because who wants to send their kid to a ghetto school if they can avoid it.
Here we have the fantastic minority clause...I could have send my kid to the other school in the neighborhood, because he was one of the few pale faces in class....we ended up moving his 3rd year, so there was not much lost.
Many people who could afford it send their kids to private school so they did not have to encounter the variety in demographics.

Budget cuts make schools bad, and policy: Leave no kid behind. Nuff said.
The money is poured into bringing the underachievers up, burying the teachers under paperwork, while at the same time money for the smart kids is being cut.
It's impossible to have a smart kid in a bad school.
Screw the school, it's not my job to fix it. My job is to give my kid the best start he can have into life.
Being bored to tears and losing interest in learning is not the way to go.


Not to mention the article was poorly written - what else is new.
And the author has no clue how educational systems work.

 

[Big Don]

I am not reading bill's exploits...

Because you'd rather let your personal prejudices take over than listen to someone you don't like

Alas: bad schools take more than one set of parents to fix them.
Bad schools are bad because the majority of parents don't give a hoot.

That and the fact that teacher's unions, classified employees unions, etc have public schools hamstrung

Yes, seen one of those from the inside. When there are 500 kids in the school and only 5 parents show up (as in people, not pairs, and always the same) you can't make head waves.
When half of the students come from the Ghetto, the other half from the poor part of town (that's why the ghetto is there in the first place) you can't make head waves.

So you have a downward spiral, because who wants to send their kid to a ghetto school if they can avoid it.
Here we have the fantastic minority clause...I could have send my kid to the other school in the neighborhood, because he was one of the few pale faces in class....we ended up moving his 3rd year, so there was not much lost.
Many people who could afford it send their kids to private school so they did not have to encounter the variety in demographics.

Of course it had nothing to do with private school providing a better education, it was all because of RACISM...

Budget cuts make schools bad, and policy: Leave no kid behind. Nuff said.
The money is poured into bringing the underachievers up, burying the teachers under paperwork, while at the same time money for the smart kids is being cut.
It's impossible to have a smart kid in a bad school.
Screw the school, it's not my job to fix it. My job is to give my kid the best start he can have into life.
Being bored to tears and losing interest in learning is not the way to go.


Not to mention the article was poorly written - what else is new.
And the author has no clue how educational systems work.

 

[Tgace]

Its my responsibility to do the best for MY children....not sacrifice their education for the "greater good" down the road. What a load of ****...I'm wagering she's childless.

That sort of ******** reasoning is part of the reason why my ancestors left "The Old World".

Sent from my Kindle Fire using Tapatalk 2

 

[granfire]

Because you'd rather let your personal prejudices take over than listen to someone you don't like

I don't have time to wade through his copy pasta to find the one pearl of wisdom he has (admittedly) once in a blue moon.
However, that was not the point.

That and the fact that teacher's unions, classified employees unions, etc have public schools hamstrung

Your bias is showing. not all areas are created equal, and heaven forbid, unions actually do cover the teacher's behinds. The problems in the system are many fold, the unions are not the biggest problem - not everywhere.

Of course it had nothing to do with private school providing a better education, it was all because of RACISM...

No need to caps lock the word.
While on the one hand it is true, on the other hand it's not:
No doubt racism had the major role in the whole private school boom around here.
But it has perpetuated the whole thing of the caring parents collecting their efforts in one school, the others in the public schools.

And it takes an herculean effort now to turn the rudder around.
And, drum roll please, the caring 'minority' parents also send their children to private school over even good public schools.

And dagnabbit, the property owners are paying for the schools, whether or not they send the kids to the school in the district.....

 

[Tgace]

And dagnabbit, the property owners are paying for the schools, whether or not they send the kids to the school in the district.....

Exactly.

Sent from my Kindle Fire using Tapatalk 2

 

[granfire]

One more thing:
For the love of Pete, quit harping on how evil teachers and their unions are!

I have found the most involved and caring teachers in the lower end schools, hamstringed by bureaucracy, willing to go the extra mile (and a half), spending their own money on what the budget did not provide, or finding outside resources to supplement their teaching!

In the better schools?
It's like pulling teeth to get communications going....

 

[Steve]

The new tactic seems to be to find an extreme article that misrepresents one side and then counter that with an extreme article that misrepresents the other side.

Suk, let me assure you tht most Americans don't have a problem with either public or private schools. They understand that both have strengths and weaknesses.

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD