Neoliberalism: The Ideology That Dares Not Speak Its Name

[TeacherinExile]

(01-01-2017, 10:02 AM)Odin Wrote: The problem with performance-based evaluation is that a lot of things that go into kids' academic performance is completely outside of teacher's control. It's not the teachers' fault for a student having a poor home life or for a student having parents who are dullards or anti-intellectual. Performance-based evaluation leads to teachers trying to avoid teaching in low-income, underprivileged communities.

You need to quit believing all the right-wing propaganda about teachers' unions, Warren. It makes you look pathetic.

That's right.  Teachers don't teach in a vacuum.  Watch Season Four of the brilliant (and prescient) David Simon's The Wire if you want a searing glimpse into the life of a teacher battling society's ills while trying to teach tough inner city kids.  Simply giving parents vouchers to attend schools of their choice--if they can even gain admittance to the best private or parochial schools in the first place--doesn't begin to address the grim lives of underprivileged kids outside the four walls of a classroom. 

Vouchers are not the "silver bullet" that most conservatives tout.  Look up the dismal results of the Milwaukee school voucher program.  Charter schools, to mention another example of "school choice," have no better record as a whole than public schools, according to recent studies.  Some are indeed much worse.

After years of studying our misguided efforts at school reform (and author Diane Ravitch is a credible critic) I am now convinced that such efforts have been more motivated by ideology than by a genuine desire to improve public education.  It is no coincidence that the conservative push for school choice in state legislatures has been accompanied by a frontal assault on teacher unions--and pensions--by radicals such as Gov. Scott Walker of Wisconsin.  Destroy teacher unions, and you cut out the legs of financial support for progressive politicians committed to public education. 

And quite frankly, it's really about money, not improving the lot of kids who live in impoverished communities.  The ownership class--educational "entrepreneurs"--see the treasury that funds public education as just another "honey pot" to raid in their pursuit of profit, in the case of for-profit charter school chains.  In Phoenix, one charter school failed mid-year, leaving its poor students scrambling to find another school to attend.  When have you ever heard of a public school going bankrupt?  It doesn't happen for obvious reasons.

It's a matter of priority, too.  Over half of our federal discretionary budget goes to defense spending.  Obama--and Trump--have both proposed updating our nuclear arsenal at an estimated cost of one trillion dollars over the next ten years.  Meanwhile, we still have dilapidated school buildings, many without well-credentialed teachers and not enough textbooks or computers.  On the eve of the Iraq War, I made a comparison for my students: the cost of a new state-of-the-art high school in a Dallas suburb (exurb, actually) to the hideously expensive--and malfunctioning--V-22 Osprey helicopter.  I showed them pictures of some bombed-out looking high schools in the Dallas inner city in dire need of repair, if not outright replacement.  (Some of the "poor little rich kids" that I taught in an affluent Dallas suburb got the point, I hope.) 

Today, I could make a similar comparison, this time comparing the whopping cost ($148 million) of a single Air Force F-35A to that of a brand new school in a Canadian province with all the trimmings ($52.5 million). 

"New state-of-the-art high school officially opens"  https://news.gov.bc.ca/releases/2015EDUC0066-001664

In essence, three state-of-the art high schools could be built for the cost of one US fighter plane, a weapons program plagued by huge cost overruns.  So when "budget hawks" tell us that the money is not there--in the next four years--to adequately fund public education, or to provide a decent social safety net to our citizens on a par with other developed nations, I call bullshit.  The money's there alright, hiding in plain sight, in all the places that our corporate state favors.  It's simply a matter of priorities, or more cynically whose "ox gets gored."

We would do well to look at the salutary experience of a country like Iceland, which has achieved dramatic improvement in academic achievement without resorting to the "short cuts" that we have tried to no avail in America.

[Warren Dew]

(01-02-2017, 11:20 AM)The Wonkette Wrote: One of the issues with public schools is that they have to educate everyone -- the disruptive child, the child with autism, the deaf child, the child with Down's syndrome, the child who doesn't speak English.  Warren, when you and I were growing up, it was not mandatory. The need for education for all these children is one area which I suspect is responsible for public school expenditures outpacing inflation + population growth.  Another factor might be more kids graduating from high school, which equals more kids in school.

Public schools have always been required to educate everyone.  Sufficiently disruptive students can still be suspended from school, as has always been the case.  What has changed is that children with learning disabilities - of your list, autism, deafness, and Down's, but not English language learners - are federally required to be given accommodations for their disabilities.

In practice, there's no evidence this has generally helped the kids in question.  The school system normally fights for interventions with minimal costs, which are normally also the ones with minimal effectiveness.  It's true that if you hire a lawyer, you may be able to get effective interventions out of the school system, but it's questionable whether that's actually cost effective.  But fighting this battle takes time, during which your kid is caught in the middle.  Mainstreaming with teachers flexible enough to adjust to the needs of individual students, as was done when I was a kid, is likely at least as effective.

Special treatment of English language learners is not federally required, and is probably counterproductive.  It used to be that second generation immigrants were expected to learn English in school if not before, preventing the issues that can arise with multicultural societies with language barriers.  For English language learners, mainstreaming is probably a better policy all around.

The federally mandated special education requirements might explain part of the increase in per student cost, but given how the rise in cost has been continual, before and after those requirements came into force, it's not likely to be the primary explanation.  More kids in school is not the explanation, since that is controlled for in the graph I provided:  it's the cost per kid that has been rising rapidly, not just the overall cost.

Quote:Under a voucher system, those children, who need more attention than the typical child, will be shortchanged, because a voucher, designed to meet the needs of the "average" child, won't cover special needs.  That could be remedied if the voucher was larger for special needs.

I don't think it's necessarily the case that those children would be shortchanged; moving them to an appropriately specialized school could be a big benefit, even if no more is spent per student.  If they really did need more funding, a larger voucher value could do it, as you suggest.

[Warren Dew]

(01-02-2017, 12:16 PM)TeacherinExile Wrote: Charter schools, to mention another example of "school choice," have no better record as a whole than public schools, according to recent studies.  Some are indeed much worse.

Some are worse, some are better; on average, they are about the same, as you say.

However, one must also consider that charter school students mostly come from districts which have terrible public schools.  Replacing a failing inner city public school with a charter school that is merely as good as the average public school is a huge improvement to those inner city students.

I would agree that charter schools aren't a solution for affluent neighborhoods.  That's where vouchers would work better.

[Eric the Green]

(01-01-2017, 08:12 PM)Warren Dew Wrote:

(01-01-2017, 08:05 PM)Odin Wrote:

(01-01-2017, 06:57 PM)Warren Dew Wrote: Actually, what your sister apparently said supports my original point perfectly:  public schools can't teach efficiently, because teachers in public schools have to keep the government happy.  Switch to vouchers that parents can use for private schooling, and the time can be spent teaching instead of pleasing politicians.

You have fallen for the propaganda, here, Warren. A lot of us on the Left have been opposed to that sort of stuff for a long time and the Right likes to push that crap in order to intentionally sabotage public schools and so then gives the Right an excuse to privatize the school system.

The Left's position is "Let's teachers teach, not politicians".

The left says a lot of things that don't actually work.  Unless you eliminate the politicians entirely, which the left doesn't propose to do, public school teachers will always need to please the politicians.

Yes, and it would be nice if the voters finally dump neo-liberalism, so that we can have politicians that care about the people again, instead of wealthy business interests. Then education would improve because teachers would have to please the representatives of the people.

[Eric the Green]

(01-01-2017, 05:11 AM)Warren Dew Wrote:

(01-01-2017, 02:38 AM)Eric the Green Wrote: Of course, unions do their job in both the private and public sector to protect the interests of their members. Before the neo-liberal era, private unions were stronger. Now, in the neo-liberal era, public unions are much stronger and more common than private ones. Public sector unions are needed to protect public workers' interests, no doubt. But often it is the public whom these unions strike against. They are the only source of the salary increases they want, and poor school boards and other public authorities are caught in the middle.

But there's no essential reason why there can't be private teachers' unions as well as public ones, especially if education is going to become an industry like making cars or rolling steel. So unions may both improve or retard the quality of products and services provided by the institutions they organize. Fair payment for teachers helps both the teachers and the students, and are essential for a good educational "product" and service.

Sure.  But there's a key difference that makes public unions more pernicious than private unions.  Specifically, public unions often control both sides of the negotiating table, because the unions can lobby for their supporters to be on those school boards and public authorities.  In many places, the school board is elected on a different day than other representatives, so that the average parent won't even know the election is occurring.  But rest assured the union will be turning out its supporters.

With a private school, if there is a union, it is at least negotiating against a management team that has been independently selected and has an interest in extracting the best value for the money.

Quote:Teachers' jobs should indeed depend on making the public happy.

Actually this is not necessarily so great.  Where I live, a lot of the public is childless by choice; they have no idea what is involved in bringing up kids, so what makes them happy is often a far cry from what's good for the kids.  And once they get to a certain age, they couldn't care less whether the kids are well educated, because by the time that education pays off in higher productivity, they'll be dead.

Quote:Teacher's jobs don't depend on unions

Bad teachers' jobs do.

I don't see the difference in lobbying; private unions can lobby for their supporters to be on school boards too. A school board depends on what the community chooses. If the community cares about itself, it will support quality education. If a community is brainwashed by the rich to support neo-liberal slogans, it will not support quality education, but only lower taxes.

"Best value for the money" is a clue about what the private sector cares about.

No, unions don't hire teachers, so teachers don't have to perform better to please the unions.

[Warren Dew]

(01-02-2017, 02:40 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: I don't see the difference in lobbying; private unions can lobby for their supporters to be on school boards too.

The difference is that public unions are doing contract negotiations with those school boards they lobby for; private unions are doing contract negotiations with private school management, whom they do not get to lobby for.

(01-02-2017, 02:35 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: Yes, and it would be nice if the voters finally dump neo-liberalism, so that we can have politicians that care about the people again, instead of wealthy business interests. Then education would improve because teachers would have to please the representatives of the people.

That's not what Bob's sister said.  From Bob's post:

(01-01-2017, 02:57 PM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote: My sister taught first grade in a wealthy seacoast Boston suburb, and was for a time a low level union person.  She always said the politicians promised easy answers that didn't help.  Time spent doing politically mandated stuff could instead be spent teaching.  The politicians were generally more interested in votes than the kids.

The politicians are always going to be "more interested in votes than the kids".  That's inherent to a democratic system, neoliberal or not, and it's always going to result in suboptimal teaching in public schools.

[Eric the Green]

(01-02-2017, 03:08 PM)Warren Dew Wrote:

(01-02-2017, 02:40 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: I don't see the difference in lobbying; private unions can lobby for their supporters to be on school boards too.

The difference is that public unions are doing contract negotiations with those school boards they lobby for; private unions are doing contract negotiations with private school management, whom they do not get to lobby for.

(01-02-2017, 02:35 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: Yes, and it would be nice if the voters finally dump neo-liberalism, so that we can have politicians that care about the people again, instead of wealthy business interests. Then education would improve because teachers would have to please the representatives of the people.

That's not what Bob's sister said.  From Bob's post:

(01-01-2017, 02:57 PM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote: My sister taught first grade in a wealthy seacoast Boston suburb, and was for a time a low level union person.  She always said the politicians promised easy answers that didn't help.  Time spent doing politically mandated stuff could instead be spent teaching.  The politicians were generally more interested in votes than the kids.

The politicians are always going to be "more interested in votes than the kids".  That's inherent to a democratic system, neoliberal or not, and it's always going to result in suboptimal teaching in public schools.

And private school owners are always going to be more interested in profits than in the kids.

I suppose it's true that school boards can be lobbied. Democratic institutions can be lobbied by any person or group; unions, parents, etc. Private management can perhaps be lobbied too, though it is more deaf because dollars are perhaps a less threatening lobby stick than votes, but it's certainly there. In our society, the question is which do we want to have the lobbying power; dollars, or votes? Wealthy parents and corporations only, or all parents and all community folks?

A school board composed of people interested in education, chosen by a wise (instead of a neo-liberal, and/or former slave-based confederate) community, will make wise decisions for the kids. If we have politicians that are progressive instead of neo-liberal/confederate, then they will be interested in the votes of a community that cares about itself, rather than neo-liberal free-market slogans. So sure, they will have to be interested in the votes of a community that cares about education.

Democracy, or capitalism; which do you trust to run education? That's the question neo-liberals have imposed upon us, in this backward country called the USA.

[TnT]

If I had to take a guess, I'd imagine that what the Republicans want, with respect to "education," is:

1. Bust the unions. It's a whole lot easier to pay someone less salary and less benefits if you can isolate them.

2. Direct funds to religious schools. That's been a dream forever. It's called "choice" to fool us.

3. Control the content of what gets taught. "Teach the controversy."

4. Sell shit. Turn over as much as possible to companies that either operate schools or sell shit to them. See for example the wonderful parallel model of our private prisons.

Desired outcome - the teaching of needed skills and concepts to kids is of little consequence.

[Warren Dew]

(01-02-2017, 03:23 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: And private school owners are always going to be more interested in profits than in the kids.

You do realize most private schools are nonprofiits, right?

[TeacherinExile]

(01-02-2017, 02:35 PM)Eric the Green Wrote:

(01-01-2017, 08:12 PM)Warren Dew Wrote:

(01-01-2017, 08:05 PM)Odin Wrote:

(01-01-2017, 06:57 PM)Warren Dew Wrote: Actually, what your sister apparently said supports my original point perfectly:  public schools can't teach efficiently, because teachers in public schools have to keep the government happy.  Switch to vouchers that parents can use for private schooling, and the time can be spent teaching instead of pleasing politicians.

You have fallen for the propaganda, here, Warren. A lot of us on the Left have been opposed to that sort of stuff for a long time and the Right likes to push that crap in order to intentionally sabotage public schools and so then gives the Right an excuse to privatize the school system.

The Left's position is "Let's teachers teach, not politicians".

The left says a lot of things that don't actually work.  Unless you eliminate the politicians entirely, which the left doesn't propose to do, public school teachers will always need to please the politicians.

Yes, and it would be nice if the voters finally dump neo-liberalism, so that we can have politicians that care about the people again, instead of wealthy business interests. Then education would improve because teachers would have to please the representatives of the people.

You're right, Eric, that we need to reject neoliberalism if we as a people are to reinvigorate our politics, our economy and indeed our culture.  The problem is you can't call out this insidious ideology by name.  It's too confusing to the average voter.  Say the words "liberal" or conservative" and most people understand what is meant.  But say the word "neoliberal" and people's eyes glaze over.  

It's a bit like the colloquial expression, "I know it when I see it," the phrase immortalized in 1964 by Supreme Court Justice Potter Stewart when he grappled with the threshold test for defining obscenity.  Likewise, the average citizen may not be able to define neoliberalism, but after 36 years of living under its ever-widening influence, most people can be made to understand its basic elements and how they have affected their lives. 

Politicians who oppose neoliberalism are better off attacking the linchpins of neoliberalism: privatization, deregulation, tax cuts, free trade and austerity.  And then explain with specific examples how such policies have all too often not worked in their favor despite the appealing rhetoric of (mostly conservative) politicians.  Talk about toll roads that were once free, coastal wetlands ruined by offshore oil spills, tax cuts that amount to peanuts for the average taxpayer but represent huge windfalls for the superrich, or that balancing the budget (austerity), as enticing as that may sound, may mean cutting food stamps, Social Security or Medicare, rather than raising taxes on the wealthy, who can well afford to pay for a threshold social safety net that other developed nations provide almost as a right.   

Neoliberalism is a political project that has "succeeded" beyond the wildest dreams of the economic elites who first championed it.  But it is slowly but surely sucking the marrow out of the bones of Western civilization.  If it is not overturned by sheer political will, it will lead us on to neo-feudalism, if indeed we're not there already...

[Bob Butler 54]

(01-02-2017, 04:20 PM)TeacherinExile Wrote: Politicians who oppose neoliberalism are better off attacking the linchpins of neoliberalism: privatization, deregulation, tax cuts, free trade and austerity.  And then explain with specific examples how such policies have all too often not worked in their favor despite the appealing rhetoric of (mostly conservative) politicians.  Talk about toll roads that were once free, coastal wetlands ruined by offshore oil spills, tax cuts that amount to peanuts for the average taxpayer but represent huge windfalls for the superrich, or that balancing the budget (austerity), as enticing as that may sound, may mean cutting food stamps, Social Security or Medicare, rather than raising taxes on the wealthy, who can well afford to pay for a threshold social safety net that other developed nations provide almost as a right.  

I'm with you.  I might quibble a bit with the word 'almost'.  

UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights, Article 25 Wrote:(1) Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family, including food, clothing, housing and medical care and necessary social services, and the right to security in the event of unemployment, sickness, disability, widowhood, old age or other lack of livelihood in circumstances beyond his control.

(2) Motherhood and childhood are entitled to special care and assistance. All chil- dren, whether born in or out of wedlock, shall enjoy the same social protection.

[Eric the Green]

(01-02-2017, 04:20 PM)TeacherinExile Wrote:

(01-02-2017, 02:35 PM)Eric the Green Wrote:

(01-01-2017, 08:12 PM)Warren Dew Wrote:

(01-01-2017, 08:05 PM)Odin Wrote:

(01-01-2017, 06:57 PM)Warren Dew Wrote: Actually, what your sister apparently said supports my original point perfectly:  public schools can't teach efficiently, because teachers in public schools have to keep the government happy.  Switch to vouchers that parents can use for private schooling, and the time can be spent teaching instead of pleasing politicians.

You have fallen for the propaganda, here, Warren. A lot of us on the Left have been opposed to that sort of stuff for a long time and the Right likes to push that crap in order to intentionally sabotage public schools and so then gives the Right an excuse to privatize the school system.

The Left's position is "Let's teachers teach, not politicians".

The left says a lot of things that don't actually work.  Unless you eliminate the politicians entirely, which the left doesn't propose to do, public school teachers will always need to please the politicians.

Yes, and it would be nice if the voters finally dump neo-liberalism, so that we can have politicians that care about the people again, instead of wealthy business interests. Then education would improve because teachers would have to please the representatives of the people.

You're right, Eric, that we need to reject neoliberalism if we as a people are to reinvigorate our politics, our economy and indeed our culture.  The problem is you can't call out this insidious ideology by name.  It's too confusing to the average voter.  Say the words "liberal" or conservative" and most people understand what is meant.  But say the word "neoliberal" and people's eyes glaze over.  

It's a bit like the colloquial expression, "I know it when I see it," the phrase immortalized in 1964 by Supreme Court Justice Potter Stewart when he grappled with the threshold test for defining obscenity.  Likewise, the average citizen may not be able to define neoliberalism, but after 36 years of living under its ever-widening influence, most people can be made to understand its basic elements and how they have affected their lives. 

Politicians who oppose neoliberalism are better off attacking the linchpins of neoliberalism: privatization, deregulation, tax cuts, free trade and austerity.  And then explain with specific examples how such policies have all too often not worked in their favor despite the appealing rhetoric of (mostly conservative) politicians.  Talk about toll roads that were once free, coastal wetlands ruined by offshore oil spills, tax cuts that amount to peanuts for the average taxpayer but represent huge windfalls for the superrich, or that balancing the budget (austerity), as enticing as that may sound, may mean cutting food stamps, Social Security or Medicare, rather than raising taxes on the wealthy, who can well afford to pay for a threshold social safety net that other developed nations provide almost as a right.   

Neoliberalism is a political project that has "succeeded" beyond the wildest dreams of the economic elites who first championed it.  But it is slowly but surely sucking the marrow out of the bones of Western civilization.  If it is not overturned by sheer political will, it will lead us on to neo-feudalism, if indeed we're not there already...

Indeed. I like to think of it also as the ideology that has 100 names. That also makes it a little harder to point at. Most people know what "trickle down economics" means, although it could have several meanings. I titled my essay using the name "free market economics." "Free market fundamentalism" emphasizes its reductionist dogma. "Libertarian economics" is a little more specific than "neo-liberal." Classical Liberalism at least identifies it as based on very old and out of date ideas; i.e. "classic." "Supply-side" is a little too specific to one flavor of it promoted by Arthur Laffer, but it was central to Reagan's policies. "Rugged individualism" and "Social Darwinism" are similar doctrines, but not quite identical. "Laissez faire" is the French word that serves very well. "Corporatism" and "The Corporate State" emphasize the real beneficiaries of the ideology. Then of course, there's "Reaganomics," which emphasizes the influence of you know who, and which his rival and future veep called "voodoo economics."

This is one of my favorite videos about Reaganomics aka trickle-down economics, which I've posted here a number of times.



featuring our new vice-president. And as Maddow points out, this particular version of neo-liberalism includes (along with austerity for liberal programs) a deliberate attempt to roll up massive budget deficits so that future governments cannot afford the social programs that the "liberals" want, and starve it by reducing it to the size of a bathtub, as one of its architects put it.

We are.... still waiting for the trickle......

[Eric the Green]

(01-02-2017, 04:07 PM)Warren Dew Wrote:

(01-02-2017, 03:23 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: And private school owners are always going to be more interested in profits than in the kids.

You do realize most private schools are nonprofiits, right?

No I don't "realize" that. I DO know that a great many of them are religious schools.

[Eric the Green]

[Warren Dew]

(01-02-2017, 08:00 PM)Eric the Green Wrote:

Actually, all of those are false except for the first one as it pertains to discipline problems, which public schools can also throw out.

[Odin]

(01-02-2017, 04:07 PM)Warren Dew Wrote:

(01-02-2017, 03:23 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: And private school owners are always going to be more interested in profits than in the kids.

You do realize most private schools are nonprofiits, right?

"Nonprofit" just means there are no shareholders. There are still CEOs interested in padding their own nests.

[Warren Dew]

(01-03-2017, 08:00 AM)Odin Wrote:

(01-02-2017, 04:07 PM)Warren Dew Wrote:

(01-02-2017, 03:23 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: And private school owners are always going to be more interested in profits than in the kids.

You do realize most private schools are nonprofiits, right?

"Nonprofit" just means there are no shareholders. There are still CEOs interested in padding their own nests.

That might be true for the Clinton Foundation, but it's not true for most nonprofits.  Private schools generally have an unpaid board and board chairman composed mostly of parents of students and former students.  They pay a salary to the principal and the teachers, just like any other school, but typically those people are not on the board.

[TnT]

(01-03-2017, 08:00 AM)Odin Wrote:

(01-02-2017, 04:07 PM)Warren Dew Wrote:

(01-02-2017, 03:23 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: And private school owners are always going to be more interested in profits than in the kids.

You do realize most private schools are nonprofiits, right?

"Nonprofit" just means there are no shareholders. There are still CEOs interested in padding their own nests.

Just out of curiosity, since so many are convinced that the Clinton Foundation is the literal spawn of Satan ... how much Foundation money goes directly into the Clinton's personal pockets either through "salaries" or some other nefarious means?

[TeacherinExile]

(01-02-2017, 09:09 PM)Warren Dew Wrote:

(01-02-2017, 08:00 PM)Eric the Green Wrote:

Actually, all of those are false except for the first one as it pertains to discipline problems, which public schools can also throw out.

Actually, as a retired school teacher myself and reader of several of her excellent books, Diane Ravitch is one of the foremost authorities on the detrimental effects of school reform.  She has credibility with me because she has done an about-face on federal laws, such as No Child Left Behind, as well as her views on school choice (i.e., voucher programs and charter schools).  She has written two excellent and well-researched books (The Death and Life of the Great American School System: How Testing and Choice Undermine Education (2010) and Reign of Error: The Hoax of the Privatization Movement and the Danger to America's Public Schools (2013).  I should mention, too, that she was appointed to top education posts under both George H.W. Bush and Bill Clinton, so she is not partisan or ideological in the least.  I like that.

The following is excerpted from the Wikipedia entry about her:

While she originally supported No Child Left Behind and charter schools, Ravitch later became "disillusioned," and wrote, "I no longer believe that either approach will produce the quantum improvement in American education that we all hope for." On her blog, she often cited low-performing charters, frauds, corruption, incompetent charter operators, exclusionary policies practiced by charters, and other poor results that diverted funding from public schools into private hands. High-stakes testing, "utopian" goals, "draconian" penalties, school closings, privatization, and charter schools didn't work, she concluded. "The best predictor of low academic performance is poverty—not bad teachers."[14]

Ravitch said that the charter school and testing reform movement was started by billionaires and "right wing think tanks like the Heritage Foundation," for the purpose of destroying public education and teachers' unions.[15] She reviewed the documentary Waiting for Superman, directed by Davis Guggenheim, as "propagandistic" (pro-charter schools and anti-public schools), studded with "myths" and at least one "flatly wrong" claim.[16] Of Education Secretary Arne Duncan's Race to the Top program, Ravitch said in a 2011 interview it "is an extension of No Child Left Behind ...[,] all bad ideas." She concluded "We are destroying our education system, blowing it up by these stupid policies. And handing the schools in low-income neighborhoods over to private entrepreneurs does not, in itself, improve them. There's plenty of evidence by now that the kids in those schools do no better, and it's simply a way of avoiding their - the public responsibility to provide good education."[17]

I tend to listen closer to people whose views have evolved in light of new evidence.  In fact, one of my favorite quotes attributed to John Maynard Keynes was his rejoinder to a critic who accused him of being inconsistent: "When the facts change, I change my mind. What do you do, sir?"

I know that my governing philosophy has evolved over time.  Indeed, I am leery of people who have never budged on theirs or, worse in a way, politicians who shift on the issues out of political expediency.

[David Horn]

(12-31-2016, 06:56 PM)Warren Dew Wrote: Whether or not it's a moral responsibility, I'd agree that universal schooling is a good idea.  It can be achieved far more effectively by taking the money and issuing a voucher for every school aged child worth what a public education costs.  People who want to stay in public schools can give their vouchers to the schools; people who find a better private school can use the voucher for that.

This is a declaration of fact, backed by nothing.  In other words, it's really opinion.  If the argument is, "... better for my kids", then you might have a point.  But public money is not intended for those purposes, and you know it.

I'll admit that this would be great for my grandchildren who attend a relatively expensive private school.  On the other hand, my son and his wife can afford to send them there.  Even more to the point, they don't' expect a subsidy from the local taxpayers.