...as opposed to the legitimate variety of red herring...
-
Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more
Omnibus Spending Bill proposes end to DC Vouchers
- Thread starter Meadmaker
- Start date
Alt+F4
diabolical globalist
- Joined
- Oct 29, 2006
- Messages
- 10,017
Opposition to school vouchers does not (necessarily) mean that someone is a socialist. Why the labeling?
This is what I mean about your posts. If you want to make the point that Obama flip-flopped on vouchers than that's a legitimate point. Calling it socialist doesn't advance your argument and only shows your bias.
Last edited:
rwguinn
Penultimate Amazing
Possibly because his policies (so far) are making us all equal in all ways:
Incentive for poor folks who can't pay to buy a house.
Stock market, in defiance of "experts" drops 10 points every time he opens his mouth
Policies that have reduced my life savings by 50% since he was elected
Policies that promise to increase my taxes by 10% AND do me out of a job
Policies that threaten to erode my remaining buying power through inflation.
We are all equal. Broke. tapped out. flat busted.
Does that help any?
Alt+F4
diabolical globalist
- Joined
- Oct 29, 2006
- Messages
- 10,017
We? All 300 million of us? Thanks for telling me I'm broke, I guess I didn't know.
BeAChooser
Banned
- Joined
- Jun 20, 2007
- Messages
- 11,716
I just call it like I see it. If Obama wants the state to control education and redistributes wealth to make that happen ... that's socialism.
A bias against socialists? I'll freely admit that. But is that bad?
GStan
Graduate Poster
- Joined
- Nov 20, 2007
- Messages
- 1,350
It is if you want to have a rational discussion about the issue.
Meadmaker
Unregistered
- Joined
- Apr 27, 2004
- Messages
- 29,033
If I may interject.....
The OP concerned whether or not President Obama and/or the Democratic Congress was bowing to a special interest when introducing legislation that would terminate the DC voucher program.
Although not directly addressed in the OP, addressing that question would inevitably lead to a question whether vouchers, in general or in DC specifically, were a good idea. After all, the President might be opposed to vouchers based on principled opposition, fueled by careful analysis of the situation, as opposed to just being in the pocket of a particular special interest group.
Among the things not relevant is whether or not he's a socialist, or the messiah, or a good President in general. And unless the Secretary of State starts pressuring the Swedes to end their school voucher program, there is no need to even mention the name of any President who served prior to 2001.
Back to our regularly scheduled topic....
I want to reexpress an argument that is at the core of my pro-voucher support.
I fully agree with the quote provided by TB:
If that is the case, no modification in the methods, pay, or even number of teachers in inner city schools will result in any significant modification of academic performance.
In order to improve academic performance, it is necessary to allow low income students to attend school with high income students.
In the public school system, the vast majority of students are required to attend school near their homes.
In order to avoid going to school with low income students, families of middle and high income students move to neighborhoods that are segregated by income. (In the US, that also frequently means segregated by race, but I think income is the more important concern today for most people.) The public school system thus perpetuates and reinforces income segregation of our cities.
To improve this situation, students must be allowed to attend schools that are distant from their homes. Although inconvenient, many parents will find this a preferable alternative to relocating to a more affluent neighborhood.
The most effective way to achieve that goal, of allowing students to attend schools that are distant from their homes, is a voucher program that is not geographically limited, although other methods may also achieve the same result.
Now that's just a sketch, but that's the basic reason I advocate voucher programs. Note that it is not based on some belief in free market magic, nor is it based on criticism of current teachers and/or their collective bargaining representatives. In that sense, it does not follow the typical line of arguments for school vouchers. I am curious to hear what response there is to this line of argument from voucher opponents.
The OP concerned whether or not President Obama and/or the Democratic Congress was bowing to a special interest when introducing legislation that would terminate the DC voucher program.
Although not directly addressed in the OP, addressing that question would inevitably lead to a question whether vouchers, in general or in DC specifically, were a good idea. After all, the President might be opposed to vouchers based on principled opposition, fueled by careful analysis of the situation, as opposed to just being in the pocket of a particular special interest group.
Among the things not relevant is whether or not he's a socialist, or the messiah, or a good President in general. And unless the Secretary of State starts pressuring the Swedes to end their school voucher program, there is no need to even mention the name of any President who served prior to 2001.
Back to our regularly scheduled topic....
I want to reexpress an argument that is at the core of my pro-voucher support.
I fully agree with the quote provided by TB:
some guy name Coleman back in the '60s said:
If that is the case, no modification in the methods, pay, or even number of teachers in inner city schools will result in any significant modification of academic performance.
In order to improve academic performance, it is necessary to allow low income students to attend school with high income students.
In the public school system, the vast majority of students are required to attend school near their homes.
In order to avoid going to school with low income students, families of middle and high income students move to neighborhoods that are segregated by income. (In the US, that also frequently means segregated by race, but I think income is the more important concern today for most people.) The public school system thus perpetuates and reinforces income segregation of our cities.
To improve this situation, students must be allowed to attend schools that are distant from their homes. Although inconvenient, many parents will find this a preferable alternative to relocating to a more affluent neighborhood.
The most effective way to achieve that goal, of allowing students to attend schools that are distant from their homes, is a voucher program that is not geographically limited, although other methods may also achieve the same result.
Now that's just a sketch, but that's the basic reason I advocate voucher programs. Note that it is not based on some belief in free market magic, nor is it based on criticism of current teachers and/or their collective bargaining representatives. In that sense, it does not follow the typical line of arguments for school vouchers. I am curious to hear what response there is to this line of argument from voucher opponents.
Meadmaker
Unregistered
- Joined
- Apr 27, 2004
- Messages
- 29,033
I've mentioned the Swedes several times, because they are the best example of a widespread voucher system, unlike the extremely limited testbeds found in the United States. I was unaware that pressure is building in the UK to adopt the Swedish model, or some variation thereon.
http://www.spectator.co.uk/the-maga...weden-the-new-tory-education-revolution.thtml
http://www.spectator.co.uk/the-maga...weden-the-new-tory-education-revolution.thtml
Alt+F4
diabolical globalist
- Joined
- Oct 29, 2006
- Messages
- 10,017
No. Having a bias against socialists isn't bad at all. I don't like that ideology either. Obama however, is not a socialist. If he were I'd be allowed to marry the person I love.
BeAChooser
Banned
- Joined
- Jun 20, 2007
- Messages
- 11,716
BeAChooser
Banned
- Joined
- Jun 20, 2007
- Messages
- 11,716
Alt+F4
diabolical globalist
- Joined
- Oct 29, 2006
- Messages
- 10,017
Obama believes that an invisible man who lives in the sky tells him that not everyone in the United States is entitled to the same rights. Not very socialist.
Ziggurat
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Jun 19, 2003
- Messages
- 64,072
Silly Alt. What ever made you think that socialism requires equality? It is perfectly compatible with discrimination. It may be that many who advocate socialism advocate equality as well, but there never was any necessary connection.
Alt+F4
diabolical globalist
- Joined
- Oct 29, 2006
- Messages
- 10,017
Yesterday Obama came out in support of merit pay for teachers, something the major teacher's unions are adamantly opposed to. How did that happen?
WildCat
NWO Master Conspirator
- Joined
- Mar 23, 2003
- Messages
- 59,856
We'll have to see how he defines "merit pay".
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/chi-obama-education_wedmar11,0,6571296.story
Let's hope this isn't what he has in mind.
Meadmaker
Unregistered
- Joined
- Apr 27, 2004
- Messages
- 29,033
Seems like "pay for preparation" instead of "pay for performance."
To be fair, I'm not sure it's possible to accurately measure "performance" of a teacher in a fair, unbiased, way. Who's performing better, a teacher who helps raise a C student to a B-, or one who lets someone skate by with a B+, when he could have achieved an A?
I'm not against the concept of pay for performance, though. I just see problems in implementation.
Of course, you could reward pay for performance based on parents' evaluations, measured by whether or not they let that teacher continue teaching their kid. Nah...
Still, it is good to see Obama propose something that the teachers' unions don't like. It suggests he might not be in their hip pocket after all.
To be fair, I'm not sure it's possible to accurately measure "performance" of a teacher in a fair, unbiased, way. Who's performing better, a teacher who helps raise a C student to a B-, or one who lets someone skate by with a B+, when he could have achieved an A?
I'm not against the concept of pay for performance, though. I just see problems in implementation.
Of course, you could reward pay for performance based on parents' evaluations, measured by whether or not they let that teacher continue teaching their kid. Nah...
Still, it is good to see Obama propose something that the teachers' unions don't like. It suggests he might not be in their hip pocket after all.