Well, no, I blame the problems with public schools on those who vote against fixing the problems with public schools. That those people tend to be conservative is their own choice.
Never been married, so no. But, we have evolved over millions of years to be violent against others, and to harm those who cannot fight back against it. So, I take it that’s not a change that you think that we should make?
Did they?
A good, concise summary, with the added note that conservatives are generally pissed off about increasing money spent on public education despite suboptimal results, while supporting tax dollars going to religious and charter schools which fit their vision of how kids should be taught (while often exaggerating the educational benefits offered by such schools).
A relatively balanced look at charter schools here:
Aside from politics, this is also overwhelmingly a religious issue. Religious conservative parents are well aware that public schools are almost certain to teach their kids to be secular and atheist. They don’t want that.
The quality is a legit gripe. Regardless of whether one leans politically left or right, I think it would be hard to say with a straight face that the U.S. public K-12 education system, as it currently stands, produces great outcomes and does things great. Wasn’t there a stat somewhere in the 1990s that said that around 17 percent of graduating high schoolers couldn’t even really read?
I can believe that they believe that, but it doesn’t make it true.
90% of students go to public school. There’s lots of room in there to point to failures, but there is even more room to point to great outcomes.
This is exactly what the OP was talking about in painting the entire public school system with a broad brush.
I dunno, would you care to cite it?
I suppose this might be relevant to this thread:
https://capitolfax.com/2021/06/04/schimpf-unveils-illinois-parents-bill-of-rights/
It’s about the “Illinois Parents’ Bill of Rights” proposed by Paul Schimpf, Republican candidate for governor of Illinois. Which reeks of distrust of the public schools.
Alongside of that, I’ve noticed that a lot of liberals have the same attitude towards public K-12 education that conservatives have towards the military: That is, they will complain frequently about underfunding and deficiencies that need addressing, yet if someone from the outside makes an external criticism of it, they will suddenly circle the wagons and say that the system performs great - suddenly, the underfunded public school system produces the best students, and our underfunded Pentagon kicks everyone’s ass.
This is what I meant to say, but not perhaps as cynically. For religious conservatives, public education is a direct threat to their religion (and sometimes, their indoctrination.)
When we start sending our kindergartners overseas to fight and kill people, your analogy will start to make some sort of sense.
But, in any case, you have pointed out the fact that someone can be supportive of something while also acknowledging and wanting to fix its flaws.
External criticism? Way to downplay what is going on. Don’t you mean total condemnation and demonization?
In my post above, I said that conservatives cannot talk about education without bashing teacher unions within the first few sentences. Here is a case in point.
I don’t know about conservatives, but I see it as important to understand human nature not so we can endorse the naturalistic fallacy, but so we have a better chance of making policies that work. Communism is the (in)famous example - it sounds great on paper, but in practice it has always been a disaster, because it doesn’t take human nature, motivations etc into account. Hence why even most left-wingers endorse some form of capitalism. You have to work with human nature and not against it.
I don’t think conservatives are particularly prone to excusing their behaviour by saying they are following animal instincts. In fact, one sees the same argument in reverse in other areas: conservatives say young people should overcome their baser instincts and avoid having sex until they are at least in a committed relationship, progressives scoff and say this is unrealistic, and we should work around it by providing even young teens with contraception. (And if I made this argument to a conservative, they would probably accuse me of endorsing promiscuity, just as you accused me of endorsing segregation.)
If conservatives think all public schools are bad, then it would not make much sense to support them, would it? They want alternatives, or radical changes, and presumably they want those to be available to all kids.
My view on this is that Democrats talk the talk, but they generally don’t walk the walk. There was a thread a while ago about ‘nice white parents’ - those are the (white) Democrats. Massachusetts is one of the most liberal states, yet judging by the news the schools in Boston are highly segregated. Is that the fault of conservatives?
They want a meritocracy so they and their kids have a chance to rise, and they also want to give their kids the best chance possible. Sure, in some ways it’s contradictory, but even well-off parents who don’t send their kids to private school on principle will generally take the time to help them with homework, get them support if they struggle, enrol them in extracurriculas, and help them with college applications. And if the area they live in has bad schools, they’ll find some way around it or stump up for the private school.
Who even believes that? I’ve never met anyone. People who believe everything is fine with no changes needed think they are doing well because they are smarter, more talented, whatever. Or because they overcame their animal instincts. They see attempts to change things as giving other people an unfair advantage, or handout they didn’t earn. I’m not at all saying they are right, but this is how they see it.
I used to believe in a meritocracy. Now I’m not so sure. It seems to me that the people who decide who has “merit” are intrinsically biased in favor of people like themselves. They assume they have merit, so that’s what they want.
The only true meritocracy I’ve heard of involves musicians auditioning for orchestra parts. They perform behind a screen, so the panel doesn’t know what the auditioner looks like, or even his/her gender.
Hmmm. How would liberals feel about sending their kids to schools run by fundamentalists, or perhaps the alt-right?
These are the elements of conservative hate against education:
Those are the actual reasons they hate public education. The other stuff about unions social promotion and teacher competence is just post-hoc rationalization.
Anecdotally, for what it’s worth, fully 100% of all the homeschoolers I know opted out of public schools specifically because public schools teach things that contradict the dogmas of Christianity, capitalism and white supremacy (they want to teach their own history of race relations, which is that black people bring all their misfortunes upon themselves, and the kindly beleaguered white folk are just helping them out of their ignorance, and racism isn’t a problem because it was solved some years ago, unless you’re talking about reverse racism, which is very serious business). Also climate change is fake.
Good point. Very true.
I don’t think a perfect meritocracy is possible. We’ve already mentioned one problem: parents overwhelmingly favour their own children and want to give them any help they can. And in some ways there is nothing particularly moral about rewarding people for talents they were born with. But what’s the alternative? We want each person to contribute to society the best and the most that they can, because that benefits everyone.
That is the perfect example of a way to work around people’s tendency to bias, without having to change them in ways that may not even be possible. And yet some people even object to this:
And isn’t it odd that they bash teachers unions which might make it hard to fire not great teachers in some cases, but are fine with police unions who protect cops who kill innocent people?
(I’m for police unions also. )
About 13 percent of all 17-year-olds in the United States can be considered functionally illiterate. Functional illiteracy among minority youth may run as high as 40 percent.
The U.S. Department of Education says that the number of functionally illiterate 17-year-olds in the United States still is about 13 percent. Among minority youth, 44 percent of 17-year-olds are functionally illiterate.
Author Beth Fertig says that as many as 20 percent of American adults may be functionally illiterate. They may recognize letters and words, but can’t read directions on a bus sign or a medicine bottle, read or write a letter, or hold most any job.
Some of this is due to America being a melting pot with lots of immigration:
English language learners (ELLs) face particular barriers to achieving high levels of
literacy
¾ Nationally, ELLs scored an average of 41 points lower on the 2007 NAEP 12th-grade writing
assessment. While 60% of ELLs scored below basic on this assessment, 83% of non-ELLs
scored at or above basic (NCES, 2008).
¾ ELLs who enter into the U.S. school system in high school enter a learning environment
where literacy instruction is rarely given, even though ELLs are expected to learn complex
course content (Rivera & Collum, 2006).
To a conservative the only good union is a Police union.