Gawker’s John Cook proposes a solution to the structural issues facing Chicago public schools:
There is one simple step that would go a long way toward resolving many of those issues: Make all schools public schools.
Yes, this is what it seems. It’s also a proposal supported by Warren Buffett and others including L.A.’s charter school czar and Obama succubite, Steve Barr.
For what it’s worth, the economists who blog at Forbes’ Modeled Behavior ridiculed the post on Twitter. Cook merely retweeted the criticism (the Twitter version of agree and amplify). Which brings to mind what is so obnoxious about the Gawker empire. The confidence with which they write (see: Hamilton Nolan’s argument for a maximum income) far outpaces their knowledge on the issues they typically write about. And they don’t seem to know that they don’t know what they’re talking about.
Cook lays it out:
This would of course be a radical and highly disruptive step. It would involve forcibly transferring ownership of all existing private schools to the school district in which they reside, and readjusting local tax schemes to capture the tuition parents currently pay (the nationwide average is $8,549 per year, which means a total of $47 billion is spent each year on opting out of the public education system). Then access to the newly “nationalized” schools would have to be distributed on some fair basis to local students, with the wealthy kids who don’t make the cut into their old schools being sent to the regular ones, without air conditioning or libraries. And resources would have to be redistributed within the school districts so that the resources formerly lavished on private schools could be spent shoring up the failing public ones.
And then:
…there’s also a moral argument for banning private education. Put simply: Equality of opportunity demands that children should not be penalized—or advantaged—by the accident of their birth. Educational benefits, which are the most crucial resource when it comes to determining the life-outcomes for children of all backgrounds, shouldn’t be distributed based on how rich your parents are. They should be distributed equally.
Perhaps there is something important in the phrase “accident of their birth”. Some parents plan the birth of their children. Many children are merely accidents. There’s likely a correlation between the academic success and wealth of the parents and whether or not the kid was an accident. Because if you plan to have kids then you’re probably more likely to plan out their educational paths. You probably also care more about their education. You invest in that child in many, many ways. But if the kid is an accident or if there was no good plan put in place – well now someone has to do the planning for you for life to be fair.
The reason for the obstruction of conservatives against most of Obama’s policy proposals stems from the belief that, left unfettered, many more liberal politicians would try to enforce policies based upon these arguments. Cook goes on:
And that’s what private education does: It allows parents to purchase better life-prospects for their kids simply because they can afford it…Of course, the act of simply raising children in a wealthy home is a form of purchasing them better life-prospects than poorer children. And attempting to equalize that dynamic would be impossible without unacceptable governmental intrusions into the child-parent relationship.
Cook never says why it is so imperative to have equal educational outcomes. We have to assume that one person’s success is somehow offensive. Again, two very different concepts of equal opportunity. Does Cook see how this would play out? If private schools are banned, the wealthy will move to school districts which are better than the ones in areas where parents don’t care as much about their children’s educational outcomes. Or, if they’re forced to send their kids to bad schools full of inferior, violent students, the schools themselves will become segregated in different ways. The smarter kids will take more honors classes, for one. According to Cook, that wouldn’t be fair. Or perhaps wealthier parents (or parents who just happen to care more about their kids’ success) will enroll their kids in extracurricular activities. Force them to learn another language or an instrument. Or they’d bring in a private tutor in order to help them get into good colleges. That will give them a leg up over their less wealthy peers and that’s not fair.
These people are insane. But it is refreshing that almost everyone who commented at the site also thinks that Cook is insane.
Like this:
Like Loading...
How would Sidwell Friends work around that one?
“…and readjusting local tax schemes to capture the tuition parents currently pay …”
And yet when you send your child to private school,you still get to pay taxes to the school district they don’t utilize.
It’s always about theft of resources.
it’s ludicrous. where voucher systems don’t exist families that send their kids to private schools are paying through the nose for services they don’t benefit from. so what’s the underlying argument here? basically, liberals want the rich/smart (white) kids’ brain power and their cordiality. They want their good manners to basically blunt the bad antics of the other students. So they’re being employed by the school district to serve a monitor function. But liberal-progressives talk about this as if its those kids and their families’ duty to provide this function. All while there is even more pressure to pay more money. Sounds like a better system would be to identify the “good” ones and then subsidize them. Pay them to study at a particular school. Recruit them and thank them for being good examples.
I wonder if Gawker understand that if the children of progressives were attending public schools, then those progressives would become anti-union, anti-diversity, and anti-social engineering.
Many liberals seem to forget that public education is the domain of liberals because so few liberals actually send their children to public schools.
If this proposal were to be implemented, we would come the closest to a white revolt as there’s ever been in this country. This happened only once: the 1994 congressional elections. The threat of Hillarycare and Clinton administration’s miscallibrated arrogance in their first year is what triggered the Gingrich rebellion.
With the privatizing of public schools sans a wealthy escape clause, the upper middle class would get on board with the revolt and become hostile to the government, whom they presently support.
The school-privatization revolt would make the Tea Party look like Berkeley. Home schooling would take off as well — possibly as the only way of preventing an outright challenge of the government’s legitimacy.
Homeschooling would have to be outlawed too. For the greater good of course.
The next attempt of the Overclass to use the Underclass against the Middle-Class. When do people get this? Put pressure on the Overclass directly.
Did the Gawker article address home schooling? I didn’t read it. Incidentally, the only the only time the US granted a political asylum to a citizen of a country classified as a Western Democracy was about eight years ago. A German family with five or six children claimed persecution in their native country as Christians who are forbidden to homeschool, illegal in Germany. They settled in Tennessee. I saw their photos in the article: Germany’s loss is our gain.
But if all avenues of avoiding NAM underclass schools are cut off, you will get a rebellion in some form. When cornered, every animal does one of three things: fight, flight, or East Germanization. The story of America since 1954 is mostly flight: the easier, available option. The upper middle class prices them out, and the middle class flees them. Lower middle class sometimes falls to east germanization: apathy, thuggery, mudshark/whiggerization.
But what will the cornered upper middle class do?
This sort of thing will be discussed more if Obama is re-elected. But before private schools are nationalized you will see strong, self-contained (majority white/asian) suburban school systems broken up so that more of their funding can be added to “shared pots” that will be accessed by larger districts.
At the core, Obama is a proponent of regionalism, which seeks to limit the powers (and very existence) of smaller school and municipal units (mainly suburbs) and “fold” them into larger urban administrations. In other words, Obama wants to counteract white flight and the resulting removal of tax bases from urban areas.
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?384863-Obama-trying-to-destroy-the-suburbs-via-regionalism
There is something on these lines going on already, and has been tried already.
http://mypostingcareer.com/forums/topic/6234-the-county-with-the-second-highest-property-tax-average-in-america/
“Perhaps there is something important in the phrase “accident of their birth”. ”
“Homeschooling would have to be outlawed too. ”
It’s not that, but the liberal autonomy theory. Destruction of family so that everyone can be raised the same way is what the revolution promises, comrade.
http://www.google.co.in/search?q=site%3Aozconservative.blogspot.com+accident+birth&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a
http://mypostingcareer.com/forums/topic/6236-mainstreaming-of-pedophilia-continues/#entry115944
“basically, liberals want the rich/smart (white) kids’ brain power and their cordiality. They want their good manners to basically blunt the bad antics of the other students.”
Mr. Gatto disagrees.
‘Student terrorists, muggers, sexual predators, and thieves, including two of my own pupils who had just robbed a neighborhood grocery of $300 and had been apprehended coming back to class, were regularly returned to their lessons after a brief lecture from the principal. All received the same mercy. There was no such thing as being held to account at my school. This behavioral strategy — leveling good, bad, ugly into one undifferentiated lumpenproletariat1 — may seem odd or morally repugnant in conventional terms, but it constituted masterful psychological management from the perspective of enlightened pedagogy. What this policy served and served well was to prioritize order and harmony above justice or academic development.’
http://www.lewrockwell.com/gatto/gatto-uhae-15.html
This issue was settled long ago in Pierce vs Society of Sisters
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pierce_v._Society_of_Sisters
in which the State of Oregon was rebuffed in its attempt to require all students to attend public schools only.
Of course, little things like Supreme Court precedents have never been known to stop the Obama mob.
sestamibi:
thanks for that link. the Gawker writer mentioned in comments that the Constitution can be amended therefore none of this is set in stone. i only put stock in his argument because i truly do believe that a sizable portion of liberals and liberal politicians think like this in a fundamental way. get some liberal judges in place and they’d overturn the precedent. they’d push the issue for “the greater good”.
Excellent idea.
This way racist white bastards cannot run hide from the scary brown people.
we need someone to promote justice around here.
Go ahead and mock us white boy chuck. And cry white boy. Anti-Racist just demolished your entire argument. He is speaking the truth and he is with us in struggle for justice. Anti-Racist, we are always behind you watching you ready to Stomp Injustice. Stomp the bitches. Are you ready to lead us on the next step Anti-Racist?
It’s all just classic value transfer:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/administration/eop/oua/initiatives/working-groups
I like the idea. It is pie-in-the-sky but if nothing else its great trolling material as an attack on anti-racism from the left rather than the right. Why should the upper classes get to opt out of racial integration? Reminds me of Jim Goad’s excellent Passover Syndrome essay.
In theory this is a great idea, force the children of the elite to actually deal with the shitty world they’ve created for the rest of us
There are many reasons why banning private schools would be a great idea. First, it is beneficial to People of Color. Further, it would be good for white people. Finally, and this goes without saying, it would help American society reach its ultimate goal.
People of Color would benefit tremendously from the banning of private schools. Children of Color would be put into contact with white children. This would de-mythify white intelligence. Kids of Color would realize that just as when given a fair chance on the basketball court they will dominate so to will they dominate in a fair classroom. Once Children of Color see that white kids are not magically intelligent they will begin to put forth more effort. Banning private schools would unleash the intellectual beast residing in youths.
White people would benefit form the banning of private schools. By being in contact with Children of Colcord, white kids would gain more empathy for the plight of minorities and realize the unfair privilege white people enjoy. White girls would be in contact with Boys of Color. This would increase the chance of white women bearing Babies of Color. This would work to reduce the white majority and leas to a more equitable society.
Most importantly, society as a whole would greatly benefit form fully integrated schools. Children of Color would have more opportunities to seek justice and discuss some of the inequalities that do not get the attention they deserve in our society. School would be cheaper since white parents who commit a butt load of resources to their ritzy private schools would instead spend the money on public schools. The abolition of private schools would also lead to some much needed discussions on the idea of property rights and such. Banning private schools would be the pebble that leads to an avalanche of social reform and justice.
In conclusion, abolishing private schools is an undeniable boon. Children of Color would gain confidence. Kids who are white would understand the world better. American society would move a step closer to utopia. Yes, indeed, ridding the land of private schools would lead America into an age of vibrancy and wonder.
Another victory for the anti-racists – the myth of violent NAM’s in big city schools is being disproved:
http://www.theonion.com/articles/chicago-public-schools-celebrate-third-straight-da,29538/
NOW will all you pinkys zip yo lip? Anti-Racist delivered an oratory home run. You showed us your beautiful body and mind. Anti-Racist you wrote first, it is beneficial to People of Color. This is all that needs to be said Brother. Justice must be promoted. How do we tell young Brothers of Color to deliver Justice to whites in school? Young Soldiers are listening Anti-Racist. More writing please Brother.
So a question about anti-racist’s trolling…is he a leftist who gets his jollies trying to get a rise out of people, or a right-winger doing some sort of false flag operation designed make our opponents look foolish?
I’m genuinely curious. It’s all rather entertaining.
@anti-racist
It is always nice to see different opinions. Do you consider Chinese and Koreans to be People of Color? If so, a whole different game will be played; both to the racist and the anti-racist.
Did anyone see this?
http://www.freep.com/article/20120713/NEWS02/207130443/ACLU-s-pioneering-lawsuit-aims-to-ensure-Michigan-students-learn-to-read
Mom suing b/c her kid was passed all the way up to the 11th grade and is still basically illiterate. I have to at least give the mother some credit for requesting that her kid get held back b/c she wasn’t learning (which the school refused to do b/c of No Child Left Behind), but I can’t credit her for having 6 kids. I also suspect that the mother doesn’t have too much time to help her kids out with their schooling (SWPL parents have their kids reading by age 3-4, and by the time they are in pre-school they are already advanced for their age relative to the other kids). Here’s a quote from the article:
“Johnson, who has six children in Highland Park schools, said the district was in bad shape academically years before the state took over because of its financial problems. She said she even requested that the district not promote her daughter to the next grade, but the district insisted on passing her, citing the No Child Left Behind Act, which is based on the premise that high standards and establishing measurable goals can improve a student’s progress.”
Nowadays, it almost seems like putting your kid in private school is necessary for them to just get a decent base-level (not necessarily outstanding) education. If your kids are going to public school, chances are they are in there with kids whose parents expect the school/teachers to do everything for them, including mete out discipline.
There are two sorts of people who seem to dominate on the internet. The libertarians and the liberals, either freedom or equality monocausalists. If you try to explain to either say Bryan Caplan or the CT crowd that freedom or equality is not the only worthy political goal, you might as well be talking into a dead phone. Once you realize this, you will no longer get annoyed at those who want only casserole to be served at the picnic.
My mother, a retired public schoolteacher, supports banning private schools and homeschooling while my sister, a current public schoolteacher, is against that. I attribute the difference to my mother being unaware how much the public schools have deteriorated since when she taught while my sister is perfectly aware of how bad they are now. The dysgenic effects of subsidizing births to the underclass via the welfare state and open immigration from the third world has led to a huge mass of uneducable students in the public schools and forced them to throw all academic standards out the window.
@C.R.- your first link is broken, FYI.
The public schools in mostly white and Asian areas are still pretty good, even if the teachers are overpaid and underworked. The schools in black areas are horrible. I wish more black parents would sue, their kids are not being educated.
@RomanCandle: #2. And he’s pretty hilarious.
Ah, yes regulatory capture. This ideology does not surprise me, the Left hates dissent especially the peaceful hard to control the dialog refusal to participate kind. Despite the Hippie ideologues actually turning on to new views , tuning in to thinking for yourself and most importantly dropping out and refusing to accept this glorious collective sends the Entire Left and the Collectivist Right in a furor.
Also with the economy basically doomed and the US baring CW2 is going to be a 2nd and eventually 3rd rate economy they have no choice but to double down on Socialism (not Social Democracy B.T.W. that would imply that people being taxed felt like it was in general in their best interests) They will go as far as possible along the Latin America in the 70′s Hugo Chavez route as they can since they literally cannot learn or accept that what they want is impossible,
As Upton Sinclair once said
“It’s difficult to get a man to understand something if his salary depends upon his not understanding it.”
To what Lara said, no can do. Most Black and many to most Latino “families” are a Mom and only a with marginal skills. She can barely keep the kids under control and something as complex as in depth civic participation is too hard. In addition major, major cultural changes re: parenting and childhood investment would have to take place. If those changes took place in scale and I am not sure they could, the problem would self correct.
Now intact Black and Hispanic families with strong Fathers and opportunity will do better but on aggregate won’t perform as well as white and Asian ones. Some will and some will do better but they aren’t going to have failing kids and the occasional real life Huxtables won’t need to sue.
People differ a lot and in a society rapidly approaching a point where no labor save the very brightest and the best connected has value.
This will have major effects on everyone especially non whites and no amount of redistribution or attacks on the private sector can help that.
A caveat, the US could adopt social credit. This will stop major poverty (everyone has income) but in no way will it actually resolve the underlying jobs issue or raise the national IQ
Really though… This is what the radically autonomous “nature” looks like. It IS self-annihilating.
The public school system is the number one purveyor of radical autonomy and thus SELF-annihilation.
White Supremacists should not send their kids to any school. They are all compromised. In fact, the idea of children “going to school” should been cleansed from the cultural vocabulary. If the good people took this to heart, a whole society could change in very short time.
My kids don’t go to school because I care about them, “accidental plan” or not.
There is no doubt that the black community could use a lot of genuine black Supremacists. For one, black women love the black Supremacist. That means an instant drop in the number of Angry Black Women. And two, IT PUTS the correct onus on the black male ego and his chosen desire to descend into nothingness in pursuit of liberating from “white Supremacy” by any mean necessary. He must understand that his desire for radical autonomy is SELF-annihilating. Black Supremacy is his answer and his burden.
thordaddy,
I find your comments uplifting, even if I don’t completely understand them.
Lara… I can clarify anything that you don’t understand. Just be specific?
Is a black Supremacist a black man who exclusively dates black women?
A black Supremacist is a black man that doesn’t embrace or facilitate the black female’s radical sexual autonomy especially his own daughter.
So yes… A black Supremacist has no overarching desire to see his daughter fornicate with “white man.”
But more simply… A black Supremacist is a black man that strives towards Supremacy. He would then be on a frictionless parallel path with the genuine white Supremacist.
RomanCandle,
Don’t know about anti-racist, but Promoting Justice is clearly a right-wing Moby. Fess up, which of you rascals created him?
I just read the gawker piece. All I can say is that it is truly mind-boggling.
And there are still people out there with the temerity (and stupidity) to wonder why a lot of men (and women) no longer want to have kids.
Outlawing private education has a zero chance of ever being implemented. However, say for sake of argument, the federal government did manage to outlaw private schools. Lots of “white” people who want to have families would move to places like Boise, ID where the public schools are generally OK and there are few NAM’s, the whitetopias. Imagine the white flight if this proposal were to be actually implemented. Many young adults will simply choose not to have kids at all. The non-NAM birth-rate will decline even further.
There is a business opportunity if this proposal came to pass. International boarding schools. Canada, Europe, even Asia. Making it illegal for parents to send their kids abroad would probably be unconstitutional.
I think Switzerland would be a good place to start an international boarding school.
“… would probably be unconstitutional”
Hahaha! Lolllllz, Hahaha… my sides! haha HAHAhahaha…
That ship has sailed decades ago. They’ll make sending your kids abroad illegal and a Romney-appointed judge will just call it a “tax.”
Strike at the root of the problem.
So, she has 6 kids being educated by the state at a cost of $7,500 per year each (about $45,000 total annually). That’s probably more in a year than she will pay into the system in a lifetime. She obviously does very little to educate them herself (no kid would read at such a poor level if the parent was requiring homework and so forth). And, of course, the problem is that “others” aren’t doing enough to educate her 6 spawn.
We should listen to anti-racist.
It is white self-annihilation through a tyrannically driven all-inclusiveness.
The only way to beat the radical autonomist is more radical autonomy or invoking Supremacy.
Your kids should not go to school. Period. That’s the only way to win this relentless battle.
“I think Switzerland would be a good place to start an international boarding school.”
too late buddy. starts 5:45
Of course, to your average “liberated” numbskull, “don’t put your kids in school” sounds = don’t educate your kids. Nothing could be further from the truth. First, your kids will learn with or without school and with or without you. School, at best, is just an extra layer. Second, the public school system’s most “valuable” teaching lesson is “nondiscrimination” and “tolerance.” For those of you that need an euphemistic rewind that means the public school system’s most “valuable” teaching lesson is indiscriminate thought and action AND absorbing and assimilating the pain and suffering that will inevitable follow from lesson one.
Just think about that nasty cycle? The longer your child is “in school,” the less likely he will be able to ever get “out of school.”
Yes, but the “values” of school are necessary to succeed in this society.
In a truly meritorious society this would punish the wealthy but untalented/unintelligent and reward the poor who are talented/unintelligent.
It’s arguable, however, that this would simply create chaos with the politically correct culture fostered in schools.
Socialist-Authoritarianism is the one good legacy of Bolshevism. As long as the Authority part remains I have no problem with the socialism.
Hey, a classical Bolshie. That is remarkable in these times.
Pingback: Boston Busing « Gucci Little Piggy