You see, I disagree. I think the teachers are not the problem. By and large, anyway.
I’ve read recently that class size is not the panacea it was once thought to be. Can you cite a recent study which contradicts this?
But this is simply not true. We used to have very good schools. We did not pay teachers significatnly more than now. We did not have classes so very much smaller. The difference IMHO has more to do with the infrastructure and bureaucracy teachers, students, and parents are forced to deal with. Additionally, there seems to be a societal lessening of the value we once held for education. I simply am not convinced that doubling or trippling the budgets of the current school systems will result in any significant improvements.
It was Shodan that accused Liberals of being envious of Conservatives, but he hasn’t returned to tell us why:
ArchiveGuy’s response to a couple of your questions were right on the money and I thank him for his explanations.
[quote] pervert: For instance, was it a liberal or conservative proposal which suggested that in order to recieve help for her children, an unwed mother had to name the father? Which side of that debate is really interested in broadening the context?
As best I can remember, it was a Conservative proposal. If they truly want to “broaden” the context, then why did they not offer a similar requirement for men: In order to receive welfare, a man must list all of the children he has fathered and who have been receiving child support payments or who have been in his care. All action seems directed toward the mother.
As I recall, this information was going to be made public also. In many neighborhoods, that can cause a lot of problems with jealousy and acts of retaliation. Further, the naming of someone can in itself be used as retaliation. Was there ever a promise made (by those who proposed this measure) to track down these absent fathers to make them pay for their abandoned children? Finally, please keep in mind that single mother, unmarried mother, and *bad behaving mother[/] are not interchangeable terms.
Again, it is the Conservative’s failure to differentiate that sometimes causes our Liberal eyebrows to arch. (I’ll bet you thought it was always just a knee-jerk reaction.)
Your comments on funding schools that are not performing well:
You assume that it is a matter of motivating them to do better. (By “them,” I assume that you are talking about the individual schools.)
After twenty years in inner city high schools, I would make different assumptions. I would suggest to you that money could be used appropriately in the following ways in schools where scores are low:
Stop paying principals according to the number of students that are on the rolls. (They did this in my system.) The principals keep students on the roll who dropped out after the first day. The classroom teachers are not allowed to drop them from their rolls. The principal gets paid more, but a greater percentage of “our students” don’t show up to take the big test because they are actually dropouts or attending another school. That makes our school look bad.
Instead, make the position competitive with a really good administrative salary, but allow the teachers to do the hiring.
Hire lots of attendance workers. They should not just sit at their desks at school. They should be able to double check on students when they are absent from school. Parents must be held accountable for getting the kids there.
Cut down on class size.
Hire clerical people to do the clerical tasks so that teachers will be free to work more directly with the students. (Perhaps 1 for every 5 classrooms.)
Hire a bodyguard/disciplinarian to protect the students and the teachers who are working from disruption. (Again, perhaps 1 for every 5 classrooms.) A man with a gun has already been chased off by our school police officer the first week of school this year in the high school where I taught.)
Buy copy machines for the teachers to use. (Some administrators say that anything but old-fashioned duplicating machines is too expensive.)
Air-condition all rooms – especially in the South, or at least provide fans.
In-school day care. (It deals with a reality.)
Provide consumable goods for student use. Workbooks are a good example.
(I could go on and on.)
Naughty, naughty. The responsibility of a school is to educate your children, not to raise them.
That would be fair if schools/teachers have control over all factors affecting how well the students do. Should teachers who voluntarily spend their careers in neighborhoods where there isn’t much parental involvement at school or reading material at home be penalized with lower salaries because their students don’t score as well? If that were true, then teachers would move on to better neighborhoods as they gained experience and seniority.
That depends on a number of factors, some of which have been described above. Certainly I do believe that teachers must be held accountable for the things that they have control over and they should be able to document what they have done to overcome obstacles. I also believe in setting very high standards for entrance into the teaching profession.)
With the No Child Left Behind plan, students are tested even if it is their first day in the United States and they don’t speak a word of English. Most immigrant students do not tend to settle in the wealthiest parts of town. Should we penalize the schools and teachers who have the most immigrant students? Should we penalize those teachers who volunteer to teach fundamental classes instead of honors and AP classes?
Did I think about all of these things because I was a teacher or because I am a Liberal? In my case, I am familiar with these problems because I taught in inner city schools and I chose to teach there because I wanted to make things better in the lives of the economically disadvantaged.
I think that this hands-on approach grows out of Liberalism more than it does Conservatism.
The Southern states used to be mostly supportive of Democratic candidates. Lyndon Johnson, for example, won all of the Southern states. And he was quite a Liberal. Was it a concern for their fellow man and for equality and humane treatment of all that turned these states to the more conservative Republican Party after that? If not, what was it?
Uh, no. It may* be true that most academicians tend to be liberal, but that’s not the same as what you said. What is it that you are saying is the result of “a perception of guilt”? Is it academicians that grow up in affluence? Or is it Liberals that grow up in affluence? How do you know that it is a sense of guilt and not compassion? How do you know how much interaction academicians have with the economically disadvantaged?
There was a study done in the late 1980’s that looked at data from the mid 1950’s on and deduced that reducing class size was not worth the cost. :rolleyes: But that study came under a lot of fire and is considered flawed. For one thing, it evaluated all grades together.
pervert, tell me some things that I should know about Conservatives. I learned to love Barry Goldwater and I still adore William Buckley – even though I don’t agree with them. But it’s their minds that I love – not their altruism. Maybe I’m just unfamiliar with that side of them.
That’s because he did not say this. He said that there may be other motivations behind some liberal’s support for government programs besides altruism. He did not say that liberals envy conservatives.
Again, because mothers are the ones recieving the benifits being discussed. Remember all the talk about family values? Much of that did direct efforts at tracking down dead beat dads. Or at least supporting them being involved in the raising of their children. The reason fathers are not mentioned in discussion about welfare payments to unwed mothers is because the fathers are not involved in that part of the problem. Can you explain how the liberal position of pushing for an ever increasing payments to single mothers takes the fathers into consideration?
Only in so far as birth records are public. It was not like they wanted to put the names of dead beat dads on bilboards.
Yes. I remember proposals to track them down and make their participation in welfare, government jobs, and possibly wage garnishes subject to this information.
Of course not. Have I ever done so?
Fair enough. But you have to differentiate yourself. If I simply mention single mothers, or unwed mothers, you cannot extrapolate that I am really talking about bad behaving mothers. Otherwise it is not me who is failing to differentiate.
Partly, I am really talking about the school system as a whole.
This is obviously a good idea. This would not do much to help the students who actually got low scores, though.
I would be in favor of this. I would add, though, that principles and local school baords need more power in firing and hiring teachers as well.
I agree wiht this as well. I’m not sure how many workers you need per student, but this sounds like a good idea. The charter school where my son goes does something very much like this. They do it because if he is absent or late for enough days during the school year the school does not get as much money.
Or perhaps reduce the amount of clerical work necessary in the first place? Perhaps reduce the number of administraters per student?
Security is very important. Why not put a few police officers in there on some sort of program to protect the schools.
I think each classroom should have at least one computer. Again, the school my son goes to does this. Attendance and many of the classwork grades are on it. They maintain a web site where I can look and see my sons attendance at each class. I get email whenever he is late or absent.
All in all, I agree with your suggestions. Why don’t you look into opening a smal school under some variation of the voucher or charter programs? Or perhaps working with such a school. All I am saying is that if we have two schools one which follows your suggestions and one which does not, which one would you send your kids to? Which one should the government fund? If they fund the one which follows your ideas, how long will it be before they both do?
Perhaps, but the reality is that they spend as much time there as they do at home. Parents have dropped the responsibility for helping to educate their kids and schools have dropped the responsibility to help raise them. Both parties must do better.
No one every has complete control over all factors affecting one’s career. Is it really fair that so many people bought cars after I worked so hard to be come the worlds best buggy whip maker?
I understand your point, though. I agree there are difficulties in measuring how well teachers or schools are doing. Test scores simply raise problems like how was the test created, given, or graded. Not to mention comparing disabled kids to normal kids. But this is really another argument in favor of removing the government from the equation. If measuring the performance is so difficult, how can any central bureaucracy do it?
Well, again, I know that measuring performance is difficult. Believe it or not, it is difficult in most professions. As I understood the proposals, though, they simply wanted to send the money where the students were, and allow parents to decide where they would send their kids. I can see the argument that this is not the best way to measure teacher or school performance, but it is better than not measuring it.
Yes. There are even more problems with the program as well. But the accountability system it replaced…
Again, we are tripping over the idea of penalties. I really don’t think there are any proposals to go into poor performing schools and arrest people, or call them names. From what I understand, the voucher program is simply the idea the parents shoulc choose the best education they can and the state should send that studen’s portion of the collective education money there.
Maybe. I think, however conservatives simply do things differently.
This is definately another thread all to itself which would have a hard time staying out of the pit.
Thank you very much for the link.
I’m not sure of the sort of thing you are asking for.
I feel I must inform you, however, that I consider myself an objectivist. As such, I really don’t think altruism is a virtue. What I have been trying to suggest throughout this thread is that a lack of demonstrations of what you would consider altruism does not equal the sorts of selfishness mentioned in the OP. One can love his fellow humans without believing that some should sacrifice themselves for the benifits of others.
Zoe, your understanding of what I posted is so completely at odds with what I intended to say that I frankly don’t know how to address it. So I don’t think we can debate that part.
As this thread has moved along to a discussion of schools, I will add to the mix that for the last thirty or forty years, we have done what liberals recommend to fix the school systems - vastly increased spending, especially targetting students perceived as most challenged.
Would those advocating this trend as the answer to our education problems like to argue that more of the same will cause student achievement to skyrocket?
Pervert, if it’s so important to hold schools and teachers accountable, as you and others seem to believe, and if you are so sure that there needs to be some sort of testing system in place, how do you justify this belief?
We haven’t always had these stupid standardized tests. You see, one of the things that has happened in the last 20 years is a move toward a business model of analyzing and evaluating schools, which has been accompanied by this testing morass. Your impression of the fact that schools were better some time in the past may be correct, but it’s not supported by any of the measures that people want to use now to assess the quality of a school or a system or “the educational system in America.”
At the same time, remember that due to the “meddling” of the government, laws like P.L. 94-142 has decreed that schools have the responsibilty to educate all children - such as those with mental and physical handicaps - in the least restrictive environment. This means that in the days that “we used to have very good schools” many children were not part of the system. Many very challenging children. The special education industry has burgeoned as a result of this law, but also the nature of the classroom has changed significantly. And, many schools are now educating what they call “diverse” populations - i.e. there are a lot more poor black and Latino kids in schools where there used to be none. Poverty is a good predictor of low scores, and poorly schooled kids. They have made a significant impact on test scores.
I’m just saying that it’s difficult to make comparisons to the past, because times have changed schools and because the public now wants to measure and count the quality of education like you might assess the quality of widgets that the factory puts out.
One other thing. And this is truly a different thread, but what the public wants from schools right now is also driven by the loudest voices - business and industry. They want the schools to turn out workers. Remember A Nation At Risk - a study of how our school systems are at risk of causing problems with our standing in the international economic system. It was an economic argument.
I imagine that when you said “We used to have very good schools,” you were talking about a generalized sense that people were graduating as what you’d call “well-educated” people. That is a quite different measuring stick from what is used today.
I’m sorry, I do not understand this question. As a society we pay teachers, school administrators, and other education profesionals to educate our children*. Are you asking how I justify my desire to see whether or not they are doing a good job? I can’t quite believe that this is what you are asking. I must be misunderstanding something.
I agree. The trend towards centralizing control of the public education system over the last 30 or 40 years has been a disaster. It used to be that local school boards had far more independance for creating curiculum, tests, and facilities.
I was not trying to make as blanket a statement as I did. All I was really saying is that drawing on the best and brightest college graduates for teachers is not the only thing necessary. I should have said something like we never have paid teachers enough to draw the best college graduates into the profession. Still, many fine teachers have educated our children. Clearly something else is at work.
BTW, do you have evidence for your assertion that putblic education is diong a better job now than in the past?
With this I agree. It does not prove, however, that measuring the performance of schools is a bad or “selfish” thing to do.
Perhaps. The economic side is quite a worry for businesses and parents alike. Both would like to see our children compete in the global economy with as many advantages as possible. Personally, I do not disparage this desire simply because it is stated in economic terms.
Perhaps. As I said, I agree that measuring performance is not an easy thing to do. But the fact of the matter is that our children will be judged in a sense by the world they have to live in. If they are ill prepared to live in that world it will not matter that we were “fair” to their teachers or “cautious” in our desire to measure their performance. Surely that is not a “selfish” position to take.
With regard to the quality of teachers, I agree that
but back in the day, when you and I might agree that some aspects of public school were superior to today’s, i.e. “we used to have very good schools,” those women who did the teaching were among a relatively small elite group of people who were, on the whole, better educated than the masses. They had, in fact, graduated from college, and were better educated than many others in society, and were therefore, the right people to be teaching. Today, that is not the case. Lots of people go to college, and the best educated of those graduates do not go into teaching.
I guess I don’t object to trying to find ways of comparing schools or determining somehow that some school is better than another, some teacher is, some student is, some school district is, but the notion that you can rely on one test to do this is analagous to having a doctor pronounce you healthy or ill, and to prescribe for you, based solely on, say, your body temperature. It may tell you SOMEthing about your subject, but it’s hardly sufficient, and often not even necessary. But again, I ask you, if you do think schools were very good in former times, on what do you base that judgment? Clearly, if we go back 20 or more years, it wasn’t on test scores.
I’d like to direct you to a much more articulate statement of some of these issues by suggesting you look at the following website, which I don’t know how to link to: http://susanohanian.org/show_nclb_stories.html?id=167
Well, the tests being proposed are not that bad. If we were to look only at the score of one question, then maybe. But the tests are more sophisticated than this. I agree that they are not necesarily perfect. But they are hardly detrimental.
The National Center for Education Statistics has been collecting long term data sinc 1969. So the number you are looking for is 30 years. Link.
Additionally I ran across a site which suggested that reports were being generated to congress in the early 1800s. Sorry, no link for that one, I lost it.
Is there any economic theory that contradicts this assumption? I thought the Commies favored planned economies because they were more fair, not because they were more efficient. In any case, liberals aren’t communists. Liberals favor markets as well. We just pay more attention to their negative social impact.
Well, I for one can admit that I am guilty of this. But I haven’t noticed more of it from the left than from the right. There is plenty of self-righteousness to go around.
We don’t believe that the government should handle everything. Again, those are the communists. Liberals favor personal freedom and responsibility it is just that since politics in America lean so far toward the crazy-right that it looks like we don’t. If we lived in any other industrialized nation most liberals would be over in the rightwing and even I would be mostly moderate. But nearly all of us would stand out as voices for individual responsibilty.
And anyone who thinks people are stupid isn’t really liberal. As I just said in another thread, a, and I believe the, fundamental difference between liberals and conservatives is that we take a more generous view of human nature. The more you trust people in general the more liberal you are in general. Ignorance is another matter. I don’t believe that most people are ignorant, just most Americans. I get the feeling that if Americans understood history as well as the rest of the industrialized world this nation wouldn’t act so damn conservative. ( And if you have a lot of untaxed wealth laying around then this certainly would qualify as a “if everyone just did THIS” comment. )
Liberals believe in planned economies as well. In fact, this was pretty much the majority position of the world (even in the US through the Carter administration) from after WWII until the 80’s, that a planned economy was the optimal way.
BTW, communists believed that it WAS the best way, not because it was the ‘most fair’…they thought it was more efficient too. They were just willing to go further in doing so than the western nations (or Liberals for that matter). However, both were in favor of planned economies and economic controls…it was just a matter of degree how far you took it.
Could you take a shot at what liberals DON’T feel the government should handle? I’m genuinely curious about this, as its my impression that liberals DO think the government should handle just about everything.
Completely disagree with the first part of this statement. Liberals believe in conformaty with society and societal norms, not ‘personal freedom and responsibility’. Personal freedom and responsibility are the hall marks of the Libertarians, not the liberals. To a degree the Conservatives have adopted this philosophy somewhat, but even they don’t really believe in this (witness their ridiculous stances on things like abortion or drug laws from the quasi-religious right).
Again disagree here…but this has been addressed elsewhere in the thread. To summarize though, Liberals take a more PESSIMISTIC view of human nature. A generous view of human nature leaves people free to make their own decisions on things like giving to charity. A pessimistic view means not trusting people, but instead deciding whats right for everyone and imposing it through taxes.
I agree with you though that, while there are ignorant Liberals AND Conservatives, being either doesn’t make one ignorant. I know a lot of liberals (my sister in fact is an ultra-liberal) and a lot of conservatives (my father and my wife are both Conservatives) and I think its being blinded to try and claim one side or the other is ignorant.
Are we talking about the same thing? Liberals aren’t socialists. We believe markets are the way to go. I’m no economic historian but from what I know “planned economies” refers to a lack of markets not the regulation of markets.
Cite?
This also makes me suspect we are talking past each other. To me “planned economy” and “economic controls” are exclusive terms. What is controlled in the later is the market. In the former the market is eliminated. Am I wrong?
It depends on what you mean by “handle”. As an example, liberals believe that everyone should be free to live where they want to live. But you could argue that the government does handle this because certain things aren’t permitted. You can’t choose to live in someone else’s house, for instance.
Take jobs for instance. Liberals believe everyone should take responsibility for themselves and go out and find their own job. We also believe the government should make sure that jobs are available. Notice that opposition to banning abortion and personal drug use is the more liberal position.
Liberals have no wish to restrict a person’s right to give to charity. Give all you want… or not. What we realize is that charity won’t cover all the needs of the needy.
We believe we are right, yes. We also are willing to tax people to pay for the government to do what is right. So do conservatives. The only disagrement is over which governmental policies are worthwhile. It has nothing to do with trust.
Cite 2sense? Well, I don’t really have the time to dig deeply into the various Communist party doctorines or the writings of Lenin et al, but here is a quick and dirty cite :
Note, I didn’t really have time to go through this cite very deeply…I was mostly just looking for a quick and dirty cite showing what you asked for, namely that the Communists felt that a planned economy was supperior to a free market, not just because it was more ‘moral’ but because it was more efficient.
I assume we are talking about the same thing. No, liberals aren’t socialists. However government interference in planning and running an economy isn’t limited to socialists…or liberals for that matter. Most western nations (including the US) attempted to control or plan their economies to a greater or lesser digree from the mid 40’s until at least the 80’s…much longer for some in fact. Look at Nixon, who claimed to be a conservative but still tried to dink with the economy.
There are degree’s here of course, but essentially if you are fixing prices, propping up inefficient industries that are losing money solely to keep people employed, setting tarrifs to protect your local industries, etc, you are attempting to plan or control your economy. One of the things that piss off fiscal conservatives about Bush in fact is he seems to be sliding backwards towards such attempts to impose or plan our economy. As I’ve said before Bush actually reminds me a lot of Nixon, who also claimed to be a conservative but who’s actions didn’t reflect this.
Is this your opinion of Liberals or do you have a cite for this, because its contrary to my understanding of Liberal philosophy. Liberal philosophy as I understand it is that the government is responsible for making sure citizens have a job. This of course is part of planning an economy (i.e. making sure that there are jobs for citizens to have). I won’t get into whether this has been effective in the past or not, just pointing out this is their philosophy as I understand it.
As to drug use and abortion, thats why I said that Conservatives aren’t exactly consistant on personal freedom either. Both parties are inconsistent in different ways. The Libertarian party is the only one where personal freedom is the cornerstone of its philosophy.
Never said they wanted to restrict a person’s right to give to charity. What Liberals DO though is take from everyone to give to those who they feel are ‘in need’…thus it isn’t exactly a alturistic philosophy nor is it one that trusts to human nature (which was my point)…its one that expressly does NOT trust to human nature (i.e. they don’t trust people to help their fellow man without the governments gun to their head), and is expressly NOT alturistic (TAKING from someone else to help the poor isn’t alturism…GIVING from yourself is alturism).
Well, Conservatives are SUPPOSED to be about smaller government (thus less taxes, and less impact on the economy) and a freer market. I’m not one of the purist Libertarians who says there should be no government control at all, no taxes. There has to be a balance. My problem with Liberal philosophy is that IMHO they attempt to impose too many restrictions and too much control over the economy (some intentionally, others un-intentionally)…for the common good of course (and I truely believe that they DO think what they do is for the common good…at least most of them). However, the unintended consequence of these actions are, in many cases, that the economies tend to falter and stagnate, they are less productive, and ultimately MORE people are hurt because there are less jobs, less growth, etc in the economy.
As to trust, its all about that. If you trust people to, on their own initiative (for whatever motives) to help their fellow man, then you don’t need to hold governments gun to peoples heads to MAKE them. If you don’t trust people to be that way, then certainly you need to use force (in the form of the government) to make people help out. Again this is a sliding scale with a balance point somewhere between the two extremes.
I agree wholeheartedly with the OP; its seems overwhelmingly obvious in fact. I’d go further: not only are conservatives a selfish bunch, they also tend to be liars, as most of the posts in this thread will show. Bunch of defensive crap to justify your selfishness. Why not be proud of it? That at least would be honest.
As a teacher, I’d just like to point out something both sides are assuming: namely that there is a solution for whatever educational problems we face.
My own feeling is that the problems with schools are simply effects of societal problems. You can give every teacher in America a $10K raise (costing $30 billion annually) and they’ll still only have those kids for a few hours a day. There is no teacher or school that’s going to be able to “fix” a kid that comes from a home with neglectful or abusive parents, or conversely, with parents that refuse to acknowledge that their child has a problem or is in the wrong.
I don’t give a sweet damn how good your kid’s junior high English teacher is; if the only time he reads anything is in school, he is not going to develop good language skills. If he’s never been disciplined at home, he’s not going to be self-disciplined enough to succeed in school. Above all, if the parents cannot communicate a deeply held belief as to why education is important, the school won’t either; and will only be able to offer soul-deadening nostrums about success in school leading to more money.
The Educational-Industrial complex has a vested interest in fostering the belief that a more money will solve everything. Why they are exempt the kind of scrutiny we apply to, say, the military and its contractors I’ll never know.
No, we aren’t talking about the same thing. Again, when I hear “planned economy” I think “no markets”. Of course markets are never truely free. Sure there is some planning that goes on. The Fed manipulates the interest rate, for instance, to keep the economy moving along.
Wikipedia
‘While “modern” liberalism supports state run or state backed pensions, state subsidies for education and health insurance, this is meant as a means to move the society wide risks from the individual, which will encourage the individual to participate in the economic and political system.’
Turn Left: The Home of Liberalism on the Net
'A Social Safety Net
Recognizing that circumstances beyond mortal control play a part in all our lives, a basic social safety net shall be avaliable to all who need it, not as a permanent lifestyle, but rather as a helping hand to get back on one’s feet."
Employees’ Rights
We spend most of our lives working. Work is the foundation of our economy and a major part of the glue holding together communities. The employee is an equal business partner with the employer, and as such, has the right to collectively bargain for terms of employment.’
Lets stick to the subject. This point isn’t about conservatives or libertarians. Do you understand that your blanket statement that liberals believe in conformity with society and social norms was incorrect? That we stand up for the right of the individual to decide for themselves on abortion and drug use?
While some consider social programs charity, I do not. Like you I associate charity with altruism. Everyone benefits from social programs, not just the needy. Doing away with the social safety net leads to more desperation and desperate people do desperate things. As I see it we have social programs so we don’t have to live in constant fear of be robbed and killed by someone with nothing to lose. Now you may not like that tradeoff but it is a tradeoff. Security ain’t free.
No one is holding a gun to your head. If you don’t like American taxes you are free to leave. If you choose to say then you are responsible for paying your share.
As for trust, it isn’t absolute. Liberals favor Affirmative Action because we don’t trust everyone not to discriminate. Liberals favor public education because we don’t trust everyone to properly teach the kids themselves. Liberals don’t trust people completely. We just trust them more than the conservatives.
