During the Democratic primary, I wrote about New York Mayor Bill de Blasio and his “eat the rich” pitch for votes. He pledged to “tax the hell out of the rich.” It did not work. Not only did de Blasio never got to one percent nationally. Worse yet, he polled at zero in his own New York city with a 58 percent unfavorable rating. Yet, De Blasio later continued his anti-capitalism agenda including using the pandemic to renew calls to curtail capitalism and demonstrating a shocking lack of knowledge of basic economics. Now de Blasio has declared the purpose of the New York public schools as redistribution of wealth and doubled down on that call after being criticized on Fox News.
Last week, de Blasio declared that he viewed the public schools as a tool for wealth redistribution and not just education: “I’d like to say very bluntly our mission is to redistribute wealth. A lot of people bristle at that phrase. That is, in fact, the phrase we need to use.”
His remarks drew criticism, including on Fox News. That coverage led to the recent response from de Blasio:
I’m going to say it one more time in case Fox News is watching again: ‘NYC mayor sees the redistribution of wealth as an important factor toward ending structural racism in education.’ Exactly right. I don’t get to say it very often, but Fox News got it exactly right. Amen. We are going to fight structural racism through redistribution, so Fox News, congratulations, fair and balanced coverage right there. If we think we’re going to deal with structural racism and segregation without redistribution of wealth, we’re kidding ourselves,” the mayor added. “Nothing changes unless you put the resources behind it.”
It was an interesting pivot. In his campaign, de Blasio was attacking calling for redistribution directly. He then called for curtailing capitalism in the name of fighting Covid-19. He is now calling for redistribution in the name of fighting racism.
It is a message that will not help with the exodus of New Yorkers out of the state, including many going to lower tax jurisdictions. While Gov. Cuomo has declared that the loss is draining the state, but de Blasio is fueling the concerns of affluent New Yorkers that they are being targeted. While telling the federal government to just print money, de Blasio seems to be doing his best to continue to shrink the number of high-paying taxpayers. New York already leads the country in its drop of population and could lose a house seat. The
Ironically, he could receive help from an unlikely source — one of the most expensive private schools in New York city. The Dalton school (which charges $54,180 a year in tuition for K-12 grades) circulated a controversial list of proposals to become “an anti-racist institution.” The list included
- Hiring 12 full-time diversity officers, and multiple psychologists to support students “coping with race-based traumatic stress.”
- Assigning a staffer dedicated to black students who have “complaints or face disciplinary action,” and a full-time advocate to help black kids “navigate a predominantly white institution.”
- Paying the student debt of black staffers upon hiring them.
- Requiring courses that focus on “Black liberation” and “challenges to white supremacy.”
- Compensating any student of color who appears in Dalton promotional material.
- Abolishing high-level academic courses by 2023 if the performance of black students is not on par with non-blacks.
- Requiring “anti-racism” statements from all staffers.
- Overhauling the entire curriculum, reading lists and student plays to reflect diversity and social justice themes.
- Divesting from companies that “criminalize or dehumanize” black people, including private prisons and tech firms that manufacture police equipment or weapons.
- Donating 50 percent of all fundraising dollars to NYC public schools if Dalton is not representative of the city in terms of gender, race, socioeconomic background, and immigration status by 2025.
The last proposal is the most interesting in terms of de Blasio’s plan to use the public schools to redistribute wealth. You could have Dalton charging parents over $54,000 a year while the school gives half of its fundraising dollars to the public schools.
As with my criticism of his understanding of economics (in demanding that the federal government just print more money to wipe out the New York city debt), I believe de Blasio is fundamentally wrong about the purpose of public education. In Chicago, my parents were great supporters of the public school system and sought to stop the white flight from public schools. While we could afford private schools, I went to public schools for virtually all of my pre-college education. They believed that public schools constitute important forums for shaping citizens in a diverse and common education. I believe strongly in public schools and we sent all of our kids public schools for the same reason.
Public education is not about wealth distribution. It should be a place for all families — wealthy and impoverished — to experience a common education, including important civics courses. This is the place where we shape future citizens. It is about affording all children a common and shared educational experience, not laboratories for de Blasio’s experiments on social or economic reconstruction.
It is certainly true that all forms of social welfare programs involve distribution of resources. However, public education is not about redistributing wealth. It is about guaranteeing common education and opportunities for all citizens. The level of support is tied to its educational, not a redistributive, function.
As an educator of over thirty years, I find de Blasio’s statement deeply troubling. Our schools and our children are not vehicles for de Blasio or others to recreate society. It is a highjacking of our schools for their own agendas. Public schools are struggling with low performing test scores, particularly among minority students. We need a greater focus on education, not economics, in our schools.
Warren Wilhelm Jr. could be called the worst mayor in history, but he has so much competition, I’m not certain if he is.
What a pile of drivel in these comments.
But the question whether what is commonly known as races could fit within the prevailing definition of subspecies is interesting. It looks as though it may be so if one’s mind isn’t clouded by political correctness.
By the way, the initial claims in “The WEIRDEST people in the world” are very interesting.
According to you, what was the historic geographic territory for whites? Did it include North Africa? the Middle East?
Identify the boundaries.
For Caucasians, yes.
But not according to me; according to genetic studies of ancient remains.
Saying “yes” doesn’t identify the geographic boundaries.
Where does “Caucasian” end and some other race start? What are the other races and what are their geographic boundaries?
Wandering tribes didn’t have political boundaries. You are incapable of discussing this subject in a rational manner. Too bad. I thought you might be capable.
As for the rest of it you may have to do your own research and answer your own questions, but I doubt you are truly interested.
I’m not asking about political boundaries. I’m asking about geographic boundaries. Give the latitudes and longitudes. That an entirely rational discussion.
It’s your argument, so you’re the one who has to do the research, not me.
Otherwise, I’ll tell you what I said before, which is that you can say it’s obviously true, but that’s not a convincing argument, just like saying it’s obviously false isn’t a convincing argument.
Don’t be surprised if Young doesn’t respond.
I tried for weeks to get him to simply identify all of the races/subspecies he claims exist, and he would never do so. I can’t imagine that you’ll be any more successful in getting him to identify the geographic subdivision for each race. In fact, now that I think back to my exchanges with him about it, I’d asked him “According to you, what is the ‘geographic subdivision’ inhabited by each race?” back in August, and he refused to say.
FWIW, I wouldn’t expect geographic subdivisions to be trapezoids bounded by latitudes and longitudes. I’d expect natural barriers like mountain ranges and rivers to affect their shape, and probably even more important would be the larger ecosystem with predators, food sources, etc. Here’s an example with tigers of how biologists study how many subspecies exist and what their geographic subdivisions are:
https://news.mongabay.com/2018/10/genome-wide-study-confirms-there-are-six-tiger-subspecies/
Thanks for the heads up. I was just using latitudes and longitudes to make it clear that he could give boundaries, not because I expect something that linear. That’s interesting about the tigers.
Say about one awesome Caucasian from Dagestan. Khabib Nurmagadmenov. He is a Muslim but that is just a religion. He’s white. He is definitely a Caucasian, being from the Caucasus and all
Greatest pound for pound fighter alive today!
Sal Sar
Thanks. I hadn’t heard of him but it is not a sport I normally follow. He’s interesting though.
“He is a Muslim but that is just a religion.”
Is it just a religion?
By the way, St. Augustine was a Berber, which I thought interesting.
Tocharians, Tarim basin!
Gone, slaughtered! Now today CCP territory
India, Sanskrit, and dare I say the word– the word for noble, cognate with agriculture, Iran, and Ireland?
Nah, I wont say it
Saloth Sar
They don’t know what you mean, Kurtz. But I do. They came later than the first farmers from the M.E., Anatolia, by the way, but I imagine you already knew that too if you know who the Tocharians are.
David has a point by the way.
Mankind Quarterly readers they are not!
SS
In the “of course he did” file –
Trump is pardoning Duncan Hunter, a former California congressman who pleaded guilty to a campaign finance violation last year after using campaign funds to pay for extra-marital affairs with five different women.
He’s pardoning Chris Collins, a former New York congressman convicted for securities fraud.
He’s pardoning George Papadopoulos and Alex van der Zwaan, both of whom pleaded guilty to lying to investigators during the Russia investigation. Trump has now used his clemency power on four people charged in the Russia investigation.
Those men all seem really, really deserving of pardons.
Forgot to include the Blackwater guards convicted of massacring 14 civilians, including 2 kids. Yep, undeniably worthy of pardons. <>
“If we think we’re going to deal with structural racism and segregation without redistribution of wealth, we’re kidding ourselves,” the mayor added. “Nothing changes unless you put the resources behind it.”
What lies beneath the segregation and the differences in educational achievement? It isn’t money. There are deep issues relating to expressed and embodied values and expectations. Some of it can be addressed by society and culture, but those are just the shared values and behaviors of individuals. What can individuals be doing to address educational achievement problems?
Joe Biden laughs when Fox News’ Peter Doocy asks if he still thinks the allegations against Hunter Biden are Russian disinformation:
“Yes, yes, yes. God love you, man. You’re a one horse pony.”
—————————
Joe Biden could not handle one fraction of the press flack that Donald Trump has taken for over four years. Biden cannot even respectfully handle the ONE reporter who dares to do his job and ask a relevant question that the voters DESERVE an answer to. Joe Biden is not just a corrupt poltician and patholigical liar; he is truly an awful person. The rest of the country will see this truth about Joe Biden soon enough.
Joe Biden laughs when Fox News’ Peter Doocy asks if he still thinks the allegations against Hunter Biden are Russian disinformation:
“Yes, yes, yes. God love you, man. You’re a one horse pony.”
===================
‘There is zero evidence it is Russian disinformation. This is an embarrassing, baseless answer to a fully legitimate Q. There’s an active DOJ investigation, dating back years! Also, he butchers the “one trick pony” insult. And Peter shouldn’t be the only person asking about this.’
(@guybenson)
‘And there it is – @pdoocy asks a question about the world’s most elusive son, and @JoeBiden laughs, walks away, and then says, “My justice department will handle it,” or something to that effect.’
Biden: “You’re a one horse pony.”
What does that mean?
Probably mixing up “one horse pony show” and “one trick pony.”
He then called for curtailing capitalism in the name of fighting Covid-19. He is now calling for redistribution in the name of fighting racism.
Ive been the lone commenter on here for 1.5 years castigating Turley, conservatives and liberals on these very pages for creating their own religion. They have replaced this nation’s founding religion, Christianity, embraced since Jamestown, VA 1610, for a religion of politics. Communism follows next.
The WSJ appears to agree.
Soviet Politics, American Style:
A propagandistic press, the crushing of academic freedom and the shattering of family loyalties
https://www.wsj.com/articles/soviet-politics-american-style-11608658685
For the past four years, potted histories have warned about the rise of fascism in the U.S. But the real danger is the transformation of “tolerance” into an ideology with its own courts, informers and punishments, all of them reminiscent of the Soviet Union.
One of the pillars of the Soviet Union was a controlled press in which all coverage was organized to confirm a mendacious ideology.
A friend of mine in Moscow, Vladimir Fyodorov, went to work for the TASS news service, which offered readers not news but a “correct” depiction of events, especially regarding the U.S. and the “ulcers of capitalism”—racism, crime and unemployment.
Soviet practices would have once been unthinkable in the U.S. media. But in August 2016, Jim Rutenberg, media columnist for the New York Times, wrote that if journalists believed that Mr. Trump was a “demagogue playing to the nation’s worst racist and nationalist tendencies,” it was necessary to “throw out the textbook of American journalism.” The Times started to characterize Mr. Trump’s statements as “lies” in news stories and suppress news that worked to Mr. Trump’s advantage, such as the Hunter Biden story this fall.
The Times also advanced an ideological account of U.S. history, according to which the American Revolution was undertaken to defend slavery, and promoted it over the objections of historians and the paper’s own fact-checkers.
The Soviet system also relied on the complete liquidation of academic freedom. Marxism-Leninism was treated as a perfect science. But the ideology raised obvious questions: In a “classless society,” why were there special stores for officials? If socialism ended war, why did the Soviet Union and China go to war in 1969 over Damansky Island?
If a student tried to raise these questions, he was expelled from the Komsomol, the communist youth league. That ended any hope of a career. I knew a young man in Moscow who refused to be intimidated and continued to ask questions. He was committed to a mental hospital.
The Soviet style has become a reality in the U.S. Speakers are routinely canceled on ideological grounds: In July the College of the Atlantic in Bar Harbour, Maine, canceled a virtual talk with Leonard Leo of the Federalist Society because of “the moment of reckoning our society is going through.” At my alma mater, the University of Chicago, the English department announced that it would “only accept applicants interested in working in and with Black Studies.”
The Soviet Union finally counted on the readiness of people to betray even family and friends. The regime held up Pavel Morozov (1918-32) as a martyr. He lived in a village in the Urals when the regime was collectivizing agriculture. When Pavel learned that his father was helping peasants hide grain, he walked 35 miles to the nearest town to report him to the secret police. His father was arrested and Pavel was stabbed to death by relatives.
I thought of Pavel Morozov when I read a June op-ed in the New York Times by Chad Sanders, a black writer. He told his white friends that he didn’t need their “love texts” and suggested that instead they cut off contact with family members until they sent money to Black Lives Matter or joined their protests.
When Mr. Gorbachev began the reforms that destroyed the Soviet Union, he said, referring to the U.S.: “We’re going to do something terrible to you. We’re going to deprive you of an enemy.” Twenty-nine years later, it’s clear he was right. Without the ideological challenge of the Soviet Union, we have become immersed in internal conflicts and have made an ideology out of them.
It is true that Marxism is a more coherent system of thought than “wokeism.” But even an intellectual hodgepodge can engender totalitarian habits if it fulfills an emotional need and becomes a device of interpretation.
The antidote is fidelity to higher values. But that requires a moral seriousness that a world at peace and in thrall to superficialities does not inspire. “The West does not know and does not want to know what shaped it,” writes Cardinal Robert Sarah, a Guinean prelate. “This self-asphyxiation leads to new barbaric civilizations.”
The Soviet Union is dead, but its ghost wanders an unsettled world. Finding a lodestar for society’s moral development is the most important challenge facing the U.S. today.
Estovir, all your religious posts mean NOTHING when you keep posting about grinders and butt plugs. We know you’re just a deviate, so cut the religious crap.
Thank you for sharing this article, Estovir!
“an intellectual hodgepodge can engender totalitarian habits if it fulfills an emotional need and becomes a device of interpretation.”
Hodgepodge is descriptive of Hitler’s thinking, so that quote is, unfortunately, quite true.
He told his white friends that he didn’t need their “love texts” and suggested that instead they cut off contact with family members until they sent money to Black Lives Matter or joined their protests.
In a sane world, his population of ‘white friends’ should have dropped to zero after that little prize.
Well said, Professor Turley!
Alternatively, a coup was discussed in the oval office last friday. Maybe even yesterday as well as the garbage fires that are Sidney Powell and Michael Flynn brought their special charms to the party.
Flynn should be recalled into active duty and court martialed.
Elvis Bug
Today’s NYTs
“President Trump’s longtime banker at Deutsche Bank, who arranged for the German lender to make hundreds of millions of dollars of loans to his company, is stepping down from the bank.
Rosemary Vrablic, a managing director and senior banker in Deutsche Bank’s wealth management division, recently handed in her resignation, which the bank accepted, according to a bank spokesman, Daniel Hunter.
“I’ve chosen to resign my position with the bank effective Dec. 31 and am looking forward to my retirement,” Ms. Vrablic, 60, said in a statement on Tuesday.
The reasons for Ms. Vrablic’s abrupt resignation were not clear. Deutsche Bank in August opened an internal review into a 2013 real estate transaction between Ms. Vrablic and a company owned in part by Jared Kushner, the son-in-law of Mr. Trump and a client of Ms. Vrablic’s. Dominic Scalzi, a longtime colleague of Ms. Vrablic’s who played a role in that transaction, will also leave the bank.
Ms. Vrablic and Mr. Scalzi joined Deutsche Bank in 2006 from Bank of America. Ms. Vrablic quickly made a name for herself as one of her division’s leading rainmakers. In 2011, she landed a prominent new client: Mr. Trump, who for decades had been mostly off limits to the mainstream banking world because of his tendency to default on loans. With her bosses’ approval, Ms. Vrablic agreed to a series of loans, totaling well over $300 million, for his newly acquired Doral golf resort in Florida, for his troubled Chicago skyscraper and for the transformation of the Old Post Office building in Washington into a luxury hotel….
Mr. Trump’s key contacts at his biggest financial backer are leaving at a perilous time for the departing president. He owes Deutsche Bank about $330 million, and the loans come due in 2023 and 2024. Mr. Trump provided a personal guarantee to get the loans, meaning that if he fails to pay them back, the bank can pursue his personal assets.
Deutsche Bank’s internal review has focused, at least in part, on a Park Avenue apartment that Ms. Vrablic, Mr. Scalzi and another Deutsche Bank colleague purchased for about $1.5 million from a company called Bergel 715 Associates in June 2013. Mr. Kushner held an ownership stake in that company at the time.
Banks usually bar employees from doing personal business with clients because of the potential for conflicts of interest.
After being contacted by The New York Times in August, Deutsche Bank officials started reviewing the transaction “and the fact pattern from 2013,” Mr. Hunter, the bank spokesman, said at the time.
The status and scope of that review, which may include other transactions, is not clear, but Deutsche Bank officials previously said they hoped it would be completed by the end of the year.
At the time of the real estate transaction, Ms. Vrablic was rapidly expanding Deutsche Bank’s relationship with the Trumps and the Kushners. It was Mr. Kushner who, in 2011, invited Ms. Vrablic to Trump Tower in Manhattan to meet his father-in-law, who was radioactive to most large banks.
Ms. Vrablic and her boss championed the Trump relationship. But it was polarizing inside the bank. Some senior executives argued it was too risky to lend to Mr. Trump, given his history of not repaying loans, including in 2008 when he defaulted on a large loan from Deutsche Bank on his Chicago skyscraper. Those concerns, however, were overruled, and the relationship with Mr. Trump progressed.
As they sought more loans, Mr. Trump and his representatives provided Deutsche Bank with financial statements that appeared to substantially overstate the value of some of his company’s real estate and other assets, according to current and former bank executives, as well as congressional testimony last year from Mr. Trump’s former personal lawyer, Michael Cohen.
That is one focus of the criminal investigation by Mr. Vance, the Manhattan district attorney. Since the November election, his prosecutors have interviewed Deutsche Bank officials about the bank’s lending policies and procedures, and bank executives expect that prosecutors will summon employees to testify before a grand jury.
Since their initial meeting, Ms. Vrablic became friendly with Mr. Trump and Mr. Kushner. In an interview with The Times in early 2016, Mr. Trump repeatedly and incorrectly referred to Ms. Vrablic as “the head of Deutsche Bank.”
“She is the boss,” Mr. Trump said..
Joe, it’s funny that Ms.Vrablic is leaving Deutsche Bank just as Trump is on his way out.
Not being able to verify what you wrote I have my doubts concerning the veracity of the story? Having applied for numerous multi million dollar loans in my life, all loan officers including senior officers have a signatory level they are allowed without loan committee approval. My doubts come from the amounts supposedly loaned by a single officer, Ms Vrablics boss as your wrote.
Nothing in the NYT can be read with confidence. Even they don’t trust it. There is an internal war between the veteran staff and the recently hired wokerati.
Joe Friday is competing at a newly opened news reporter position at the NYT. There is a lot of competition. He meets their criteria for being able to lie with a straight face even after what he says has been disproven, but there are so many of that type applying he is trying hard to demonstrate to the Times his work product.
He might fit the bill and be able to bring the NYT to a new low.
Meyer is yet another puppet of our regular troll.
Your incessant need to insult people is about you, Allan, not about them.
Anonymous, you have a problem. Everything I said in my statement is true except for the sarcastic NYT position as a news reporter. It has been true ever since Joe started as Jan F. He has a long history. You have a history as well and it is longer. You have always occupied and relished this disdainful position on the blog and of other people. Keep it up. It helps Turley rack up numbers with useless murmuring.
You are here to create problems. Does it make you feel important. Does it help your impotence?
Your incessant need to insult people is about you, Allan, not about them.
Yet another insult by anonymous who floods the net.
Did you deal with the content?
Of course not. Anonymous doesn’t deal in content. He can’t.
He can’t make the cut. He’s an old white fart like most of us, and they don’t want him any more than us
Young, it’s well-know that all the big banks cut Trump off after Atlantic City. But curiously Deutsche Bank was still loaning to Trump. Deutsche even broke many of its own policies to keep money flowing to Trump. That could explain why this woman is mysteriously departing.
Another statement without facts. Just more horse poop, pure Dribble!
Joe, What does this comment have to do with Prof. Turley’s article on De Blasio and public education? Perhaps you should start your own blog and then you can write about whatever interests YOU.
“redistribution of wealth” Is the ultimate goal of the left and Democrat leadership even though many hate it [The elite class will maintain their wealth and power]. NYC is the piggybank of NYS. Anyone familiar with NYC has seen tremendous numbers of housing units being built in expectation of big profits. The west side Hudson Yards alone is a massive project and a sight to be seen.
At the same time people are leaving the city. That has happened before but the people returned because of the high paying jobs and culture. However, many have learned to work remotely and so have businesses. We have learned we can work from home out of NYC and NYS.
Economics tells us that an oversupply leads to lower prices. Lower prices lead to less revenue. That means real trouble for NYC and don’t say it can’t go bankrupt. It almost did decades ago. That means trouble for NYS. As a whole the Democrats are pushing the country in the same direction. That means their children or grandchildren’s standard of living will start to fall thanks to everyone who has supported this directional move. The younger set will get even when they realize how badly today’s voters have handled things. They will start to reduce Medicare benefits and social security. That won’t solve the problem and the standard of living will continue to fall.
The real objective of Democrats’ is POWER … any convincing lie will do
they are certainly NOT redistributing wealth to the people. Decades of Democrat approved policies have nursed financialization and trade liberalization and deindustrialization all of which has made the workers and middle class poorer whilst the coastal elites like Silicon Valley and Wall Street, who give enormous sums to Democrats, got richer
Republicans are a lame opposition group which is not as bad, but, also not as effective
Trump opposed the billionaire agenda to a degree, which got him in trouble and got him replaced.
Trump nor Biden are the enemy, nor any front man or figurehead. The billionaires are the enemy
And they are busy redistributing our wealth to themselves via the Fed and all its schemes
To the tune of over a trillion dollars more in their pockets this year. I tire of linking the sources but it’s well documented fact
Saloth Sar
“And they are busy redistributing our wealth to themselves via the Fed and all its schemes”
This crap was voted on. Bush did it with TARP and the CPSIA, for example. Obama did it with the auto bailout. I’m sure there are plenty of other examples. People need to actually vote out the offending politicians and communicate with their elected reps *before* votes happen. It would help if the media actually reported on real news like pending legislation.
prarie– THANK YOU FOR YOUR POST. VERY IMPORTANT QUESTION– IS THAT SO?
With respect, it is not.
Federal Reserve act of 1917 nor its reform act from 1977 are enabling laws
NEITHER allows the exceptional actions the Fed took in either 2008 or so nor especially this year
One could run down their various operations (the openly admitted ones, not the black projects) one by one and they would all be what used to be called “ULTRA VIRES”
But, that doctrine of law would never be a basis for the article III judges to discipline them. They would NEVER DARE!
POTUS could fire the boss and appoint a new one. HE WOULD NOT DARE!
CONGRESS could call on them to account. THEY DO NOT DARE!
The Federal Reserve is the MOST IMPORTANT AND POWERFUL PART OF GOVERNMENT. By far., Above even the Pentagon, the CIA, and POTUS and Congress
This is the reality that serious and well informed people involved in law, economics, and finance, whisper among themselves. Uniformly!
These are not “conspiracy theoriests.” These are not the yellow fringe flag, patriotic yet uneducated critics, these are serious practicioners of business which depends on understanding who is really in charge. Some, many, say it openly now on the internet. I have linked several of them. Even “rich” hedge fund managers say it now– the FED IS OUT OF CONTROL!
When you devote decades of study to it, then, you know more and more over time, how much it is true. .
This is why I say the federal regime is hopelessly corrupt, that elections change little or nothing, and the BILLIONAIRES ARE THE ENEMY
Saloth Sar
Prof. Turley or Moderator: You post that you believe in Public Education. You base this belief on the idea that
public schools constitute important forums for shaping citizens in a diverse and common education. Further, “Public education is not about wealth distribution. It should be a place for all families — wealthy and impoverished — to experience a common education, including important civics courses. This is the place where we shape future citizens. It is about affording all children a common and shared educational experience,”. . . It’s about guaranteeing common education and opportunities for all citizens. Worthy goals indeed.
There seems to be a huge disconnect in understanding the Educational values of 50+ years ago and those in the past 20 or so years. It would appear that you been sleeping through the change in Public schools. One commonly used evaluation of Public education are test scores. While you seem to have been napping, test scores have sunk. And they sunk dramatically. These test scores clearly and repeatedly show that the Public education has failed miserably in common education. As well as in the common and shared educational experience. And most commonly, it is the Progressive Teachers Unions control that has cause this decline.
How dare you misrepresent the truth here.
Public education has completely failed at guaranteeing common education and opportunities for all citizens.
The US was once a leader for healthcare and education — now it ranks 27th in the world. A significant decline from 1990 when it ranked sixth.
And now, you have to ask yourself what impact do Teachers Unions have on Education Curriculum? The Unions ask for more money “to raise test scores”. But that money, when given, goes to the administrators, not for Education, but for more administrators and higher pay for them. You should acquaint yourself with the scam of the PHD in Education diploma mills. A national disgrace, only to have the title of Doctor?!
I guess you haven’t been looking very closely.
Where did the Civics classes go? Where did the U.S. History classes go? Where did the Math and Science classes go? And this is what you don’t get.
Public education is a farce, and you know that to be true!
If you don’t, you should be totally ashamed of yourself for the ‘causes’ this post. Your blog is a farce and the only thing I can see here is the interest in putting another ‘notch’ in your viewership belt.
Please, just go back to sleep.
EXAMPLES OF PHONY OUTRAGE IN DELMARACER’S COMMENT:
It would appear that you been sleeping through the change in Public schools.
How dare you misrepresent the truth here.
You should acquaint yourself with the scam of the PHD in Education diploma mills. A national disgrace, only to have the title of Doctor?!
I guess you haven’t been looking very closely.
Public education is a farce, and you know that to be true!
Your blog is a farce and the only thing I can see here is the interest in putting another ‘notch’ in your viewership belt.
…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….
CONCLUSIONS:
We presented Delmaracer’s comment to an independent commission of distinguished blog experts. Their answer was curt: “This commenter is merely a sputtering gasbag of a bore”.
And I submitted your reply to a group of ADULTS. Each one of them gave their opinion that it is you that is a douchbag.
Instead of providing answers to my post, you reduce your snake-like stature by calling me names. Well, I am afraid that you have your optic nerve crossed with a sphincter muscle. Thus the odd outlook on life.
”optic nerve….sphincter muscle”
Bravo, but alas, you did not say which sphincter. The pudendal nerve innervates the male/female perineum, the genitalia, anal sphincters and urethral sphincters. A damaged pudendal nerve leads to fecal incontinence which happily applies to the left wing trolls that harangue you and others. Have mercy on them: how would you behave if you were full of caca?
😉
You’re certainly not acting like a good Catholic right now. WWJD?
delmaracer and Estovir are the same person. So it’s no coincidence when Estovir follows up on delmaracer’s comments.
“These test scores clearly and repeatedly show that the Public education has failed miserably in common education. As well as in the common and shared educational experience. And most commonly, it is the Progressive Teachers Unions control that has cause this decline.”
Correlation does not equal causation.
Delmaracer, you are entirely correct. Sowell studied this and wrote a book. He then directly compares charter schools to the public schools. If I didn’t see the numbers myself I don’t think I could have accepted the difference.
Tell me what you think if you chose to view the video or read the transcript. If we want to help the needy we need to educate the children. Public education is failing based on our international ranking of education. Our medical system is falling into the same hole.
The entire video and transcript is at https://www.hoover.org/research/economist-looks-90-tom-sowell-charter-schools-and-their-enemies-1 His book provides statistics that will knock your socks off.
Meyer, charter schools in general get no better results than public schools. In fact, some charter schools are run by dubious companies. And charter school teachers are merely contract employees who only work semester to semester. No job security there! No teacher in their right mind would pursue a charter school career. What’s the point??
Meyer, charter schools in general get no better results than public schools.
Let’s see your bibliography, Peter.
While we’re at it, weren’t you just telling all of us we cannot comment on education until we’ve been to teacher’s college?
I have followed this charter school debate going back to the 90’s. In theory Charter School’s could be healthy competition for public schools. It’s a sexy idea if you’re looking for solutions to lagging test scores.
But Charter Schools are run by a number of private companies some of which are foreign owned. Some are run by dubious church groups teaching nonsensical history.
What’s more, no teacher owing student debt wants to go the Charter route. Charter jobs pay less than public and offer no security. Why go that route?
There is no doubt that some charter schools can be bad, but this study involved a large number of students throughout the city so that many different types of students were encountered along with many different public schools and charter schools.
Failed charter schools go out of business. Failed public schools remain.
Keep in mind the idea is to educate students not to provide jobs for teachers.
If you haven’t read this book by Sowell you haven’t followed charter schools and you lack the most comprehensive information available.
S. Meyer,
“Failed public schools remain.”
It’s way more complicated than just providing a different platform. Why do many charter schools fail? Is it just bad management or fraud (in some cases yes–and with public funds that have little to no oversight no less)? Is it horrendous test scores? And a demonstrable failure of students learning anything? If yes for those, why is that? Is it because the teachers are poorly trained or the curriculum is subpar? Maybe yes (in which case, what’s the difference from public schools except taxpayers have no control over those expenditures), or, more concerning, maybe not.
I know someone in a badly-ranked charter school–one of the worst-ranked–but she showed me the curriculum and it’s fine. So, then, why does it appear on paper that they’re doing so badly? Perhaps it has to do with the students who are predominantly from badly disadvantaged homes. What goes along with being in badly disadvantaged circumstances? Poor nutrition, single-parenthood and the problems that often accompany this (higher rates of abuse and neglect, crime, drug use, depression, etc), inadequate vitamin D status (with its host of health ramifications–https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2857317/) and poor executive function (and the resultant struggles with planning, memory, etc). What causes the poor executive function? (suboptimal vitamin D status is one factor amongst many–https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/26708262/). What causes the disadvantage? Lots of multi-faceted and likely interconnected possibilities there, too.
These factors don’t look much different from those affecting struggling public schools.
“It’s way more complicated than just providing a different platform.”
Whether you like it or not the study, using the largest school system in the US, extending in various areas of the city, where the variables were beautifully controlled proved that the NYC public school system failed while the charter school system succeeded beyond what people expected.
What scientific study do you have to prove that study wrong?
“Why do many charter schools fail?”
If they fail, that is good for the market place because it removes bad or overpriced schools. Unfortunately, no matter how bad a public school is, it remains. Bad schools don’t want competition because it will prove they didn’t do a good job. Good schools will survive in a competitive situation and might even become better than they already were.
“I know someone in a badly-ranked charter school–one of the worst-ranked–but she showed me the curriculum and it’s fine. So, then, why does it appear on paper that they’re doing so badly? Perhaps it has to do with the students who are predominantly from badly disadvantaged homes“
But this study demonstrated the opposite. Terrible schools with disadvantaged minorities. Yet some of the schools tested as well as well known expensive private schools. Don’t hide behind the fact that some charter schools are bad when faced with a problem where the vast majority of public schools are terrible.
Your citation involves health benefits of vitamins and wasn’t dealing with charter vs public schools.
S. Meyer,
“If they fail, that is good for the market”
I thought the point of schools was to educate kids–not to benefit ‘the market’.
“Don’t hide behind the fact that some charter schools are bad when faced with a problem where the vast majority of public schools are terrible.”
The vast majority of public schools aren’t terrible. 90% aren’t failing.
“But this study demonstrated the opposite.”
But New Orleans demonstrates that charter schools are having about has much luck as public schools with disadvantaged kids, and, with less stability. Kids often get bounced from school to school because whatever school they went to one year got shut down the next.
“Your citation involves health benefits of vitamins and wasn’t dealing with charter vs public schools.”
You ignored what my citations are addressing–one element of likely underlying health issues of the disadvantaged students. The health of students are going to affect their ability to learn.
“If they fail, that is good for the market”
Prairie, it would be better if you quoted my words in context. Let me repeat them for you.
“If they fail, that is good for the market place because it removes bad or overpriced schools. Unfortunately, no matter how bad a public school is, it remains.”
“I thought the point of schools was to educate kids–not to benefit ‘the market’.”
That is right and in the marketplace where there is competition, bad and overpriced schools die. Better schools at a better price replace them. It gets confusing when you fail to read the entire thought.
“The vast majority of public schools aren’t terrible. 90% aren’t failing.”
That is you criteria for a good school? The children aren’t failing? How about the children are learning and becoming productive like was seen from the charter schools in NYC.
I don’t know how New Orleans is running its schools and I don’t think you do either. I’ll be glad to look at New Orleans if you can provide data like was provided for NYC.
As far as nutrition is concerned, I don’t think that was a metric that was considered. It is a different topic. The present topic revolves around the proficiency of children when they leave the public or charter schools. In NYC the pubic schools failed which leads to increased criminality and low income. In the charter schools they passed, many with flying colors which means decreased criminality and higher income.
S. Meyer,
“As far as nutrition is concerned, I don’t think that was a metric that was considered. It is a different topic. The present topic revolves around the proficiency of children when they leave the public or charter schools. In NYC the pubic schools failed which leads to increased criminality and low income. In the charter schools they passed, many with flying colors which means decreased criminality and higher income.”
It needs to be considered. It is not really a different topic–it is a component of the students. Their proficiency is affected if their executive function is affected.
I will try to address the rest of the post in a little while.
Both systems can address nutrition. How that is done depends on what one wants done. In NYC if is educating the students in nutrition then hands down the charter schools win. If it has to do with the school cafeteria and students eating appropriately, again the charter schools win.
S.Meyer,
“Both systems can address nutrition. How that is done depends on what one wants done. In NYC if is educating the students in nutrition then hands down the charter schools win. If it has to do with the school cafeteria and students eating appropriately, again the charter schools win.”
Teaching nutrition is a bit different than students actually putting it into practice (Uncle Sam and food banks might be providing most of the food, anyway). And, ingesting vitamin D won’t be of much help if someone is magnesium deficient. Cyber charters do not have anything to do with school cafeterias anyway. Besides that, stress is going to pack a wallop to a kid’s executive function, even if they are regularly eating spinach.
https://www.fns.usda.gov/cn/national-school-lunch-program-and-school-breakfast-program-questions-and-answers-charter
https://frac.org/wp-content/uploads/Charter%20School%20Guide_R4.pdf
Looks like they typically use the same school lunch programs as public schools.
“Teaching nutrition is a bit different than students actually putting it into practice”
Schools are there to teach. They are not the parents.
You are dealing with a completely different issue. That is not productive.
Prairie, this is the problem:
School choice activists upset COVID-19 stimulus bans governors from funding vouchers
‘Ultimately, the federal Democratic lawmakers in the House were completely in the grips of the teachers’ unions and the superintendents’ lobbyists,’ -Tommy Schultz, American Federation for Children
https://justthenews.com/politics-policy/education/school-choice-activists-upset-covid-19-stimulus-bill-bans-governors?utm_source=daily-newsletter&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=newsletter
S. Meyer,
““If they fail, that is good for the market place because it removes bad or overpriced schools. Unfortunately, no matter how bad a public school is, it remains.”
“I thought the point of schools was to educate kids–not to benefit ‘the market’.”
That is right and in the marketplace where there is competition, bad and overpriced schools die. Better schools at a better price replace them. It gets confusing when you fail to read the entire thought.”
“Better schools at a better price replace them”
Not necessarily–something else replaces them, but whether or not they are actually better is not guaranteed. Your emphasis still seems to be a bit too heavy on “good for the marketplace”. “Better schools at a better price to replace them” does not seem to be the trend in New Orleans. Yes, the bad schools fail and get replaced. But then the students have to pick up the pieces and move to another school. That lack of stability is also not great for students–it’s as though they are just getting passed through the system. The parents cannot do much besides moving schools and hope their either A) pick a good, stable school, or B) get their child admitted to a selective charter school. There will likely be egregious gaps in these kids’ education due to the ‘new’ school doing things at slightly different times than the failed school they had just attended, not to mention whatever gaps they got at the school that just failed. A good school district creates continuity of learning K-12, building on previous skills, interlinking ideas cross-curricularly (e.g., learning about Renaissance art and/or music while studying the Renaissance in history), cycling the material so that it gets revisited with more complexity about every 4 years. That is very likely not going to happen effectively if a child has to go to multiple schools because the school fails for whatever reason.
Poorly performing public schools remain because they are tolerated. Public schools are under the control of the citizenry; if they want good schools they need to demand them and diligently make sure it happens. Well-to-do districts have a citizenry that pays attention to the quality of education. That, unfortunately, does not happen to the same degree in struggling districts. What percentage of parents, citizens, and taxpayers go to parent-teacher conferences, school board meetings, meet with the superintendent and other administrators, or vote? That percentage gets smaller in disadvantaged districts. The prevalence of rental properties is about 30% lower in high-performing districts (https://www.publicschoolreview.com/blog/what-is-the-connection-between-home-values-and-school-performance). The rental property owners appear to not be doing their due-diligence either towards creating stronger schools in their properties’ districts. But parental and taxpayer involvement is not the only issue affecting student performance.
Regarding the poorly performing schools, I would like to see exactly what the problems are. Like I’ve said before, some of those problems can be fixed with a better-organized curriculum, more effective administrators, better-prepared teachers, better adherence to discipline, and a more-encouraging atmosphere. However, disadvantaged kids often have concomitant problems that interfere with behavior, learning and retention, Paul Tough, in Helping Children Succeed, explores some of these problems. Not all of them can be easily addressed at any school–it comes from the families: poor parenting skills, insecure or avoidant attachment, trauma, neglect, poor nutrition, instability, drug abuse–many of which lead to high cortisol levels and interfere with executive function.
Executive function is important for working memory and self-regulation, perseverance, and planning. Poor nutrition affects the mind–low magnesium, vitamin D, omega-3 fatty acids–are all associated with ADHD, especially amongst children who are disadvantaged.
“Not necessarily–something else replaces them, but whether or not they are actually better is not guaranteed.”
Prairie, there is no guarantee of anything. Sowell’s study demonstrates the success of charter schools when compared head to head. I don’t know New Orleans well enough but from what I have read since our last discussion the schools in New Orleans were terrible and Katrina had a tremendous negative impact on everything having to do with New Orleans. But despite that I read the schools under the charter system demonstrate better student performance than before and it should have been negatively impacted by Katrina..
The gold standard of comparison is with the NYC schools which were brilliantly studied by Sowell.
In case you never read the book or listened to the interview let me provide you with a few quotes from the transcript.
Thomas Sowell: “I love Diane Ravitch because if she will say those magic words, see no reason to look at anything so mundane is facts. It’s so happens that the Success Academy Charter School Network has a higher percentage of its students, passing the math and English tests on the given annually than any traditional public school district anywhere in the state of New York. That includes places where the average family income is in excess of a quarter of a million dollars a year. The average family income of kids in the Success Academy school is $50,000 a year. And yet they do better on those tests than people whose families have five times as much income. So the idea that poverty prevents them from learning. Apparently people who say these things will not bother to check back.”
Since you mentioned health concerns at the end of your response:
“the girls who go into the charter schools become pregnant at a much lower rate than the girls that go back into the traditional public schools and the boys going into the charter schools do not get incarcerated at the same rate, as higher rate as the boys who are left behind in the public schools. And the second point, I think, is important because they’re always saying they’re in the charter school because they have stronger discipline problems. That this is the beginning of the pipeline from school to prison. In point of fact, the hard evidence shows that kids who are in charter schools with stricter discipline are less likely to end up being incarcerated.”
““Better schools at a better price to replace them” does not seem to be the trend in New Orleans.”
I think you need to provide the data. Let’s not play Diane Ravitch’s game.
You are creating scenarios that have little fact behind them in order to bolster your case while at the same time you discard the best study ever comparing public to charter schools.
You engage in blaming the parents, but huge numbers of students and their parents in NYC are hoping to win the lottery so they can have better lives in the future. You are opting against what parents want and you are replacing parent’s wishes for the betterment of their children with what the state desires. The state, because of politics , is heavily influenced by the teachers union and the that been proven over and over again.
From your citation:
“According to the National Bureau of Economic Research, there is a definite correlation between school expenditures and home values in any given neighborhood. “
Prairie, that is not terribly meaningful in this debate.
I will give one example: Walter Williams: “In 2016, in 13 of Baltimore’s 39 high schools, not a single student scored proficient on the state’s mathematics exam. City wide, only 15% of Baltimore students pass the state’s English test. Money is not the problem. Of the nation’s 100 largest school systems, Baltimore schools ranked third in spending per pupil.”
It’s time that you deal with the study that has the numbers and the proof. You keep throwing things into the mix and that do not help define the problem.
S. Meyer,
““Teaching nutrition is a bit different than students actually putting it into practice”
Schools are there to teach. They are not the parents.
You are dealing with a completely different issue. That is not productive.”
I am not dealing with a completely different issue. Schools are a system. Students are part of that system. If students have something(s) that interferes with their ability to be a successful part of that system, their performance, and, thus, the success of the school will reflect their struggles.
“Schools are there to teach. They are not the parents.”
True, so what other aspects of that equation could be extended to other subjects?
“Teaching Language arts is a bit different than students actually putting it into practice.”
“Teaching History is a bit different than students actually putting it into practice.”
“Teaching Science is a bit different than students actually putting it into practice.”
Schools, particularly ones with a high population of disadvantaged kids, could be doing a better job of teaching these things in an engaging way that challenges and gets kids to ask questions and to search for answers themselves, but they need support at home, too.
S. Meyer,
“Success Academy requires so many preliminary steps and meetings that only the most motivated parents sign on.”
““They’ve got to show up, show up and show up again to ensure they remain active in the enrollment process,” he said. “By the time August rolls around, parents are walking in with both eyes open– 100% down with the program. If they aren’t, they fell away.””
“But Pondiscio says “you can’t dismiss” another charge — that Success Academy gets rid of kids it finds too difficult. A damning New York Times report in 2015 revealed a principal’s “Got to Go” list of 16 students to be pushed out of his school in Fort Greene, Brooklyn. He was reprimanded.”
https://nypost.com/2019/09/07/new-book-tells-secrets-and-surprises-of-success-academys-winning-academics/
This doesn’t look like an apples to apples comparison.
Public schools do not get a choice as to whether or not the ‘most motivated parents sign on’. Public schools get the cross-section of the community. This charter school demonstrates my point quite well that parents make a huge difference in the educational success of children. The charter school parents who are “100% down with the program” are likely not addicts or neglectful or worse.
Where do the kids go whose parents aren’t willing to abide by these expectations? Perhaps another charter school that is less stringent, but what about the kids whose parents don’t even try to get them into a charter? Will charters take those kids, too, if all the public schools in NYC disappear? If so, to what degree can the schools fill in the chasms (educationally and emotionally) left by disengaged or abusive parents?
I am glad Success Academy is doing well. Like I have said, perhaps districts in very large, likely corrupt, and with not very effectively self-governing populations should have charter schools for those parents who are particularly motivated (unlike an unfortunate percentage of their neighbors).
I have lived in places where local control is a big deal with the community geared towards expecting student academic success. The community pays attention to school board meetings and student success, they vote in school board elections, and the parents generally have high expectations and hold their kids accountable. Parent-teacher conferences are generally well-attended and the parents call teachers and communicate any concerns they have.
My main concern with charter schools has been the funding, and it remains so. Taxpayers, who fund schools, should have a say in how their money is spent. They do NOT have this option with cyber charter schools, in particular.
PR, you have beat this horse to death. Summation: public schools in your small community perform better than charter schools. Good, keep fighting for your unique circumstances.
” list of 16 students to be pushed out of his school in Fort Greene, Brooklyn. He was reprimanded.””
Kids can be pushed out of the public schools as well. In any event you are talking about a few kids and in general that is not permitted. The number pushed out doesn’t significantly affect the % number that succeed so it is a bogus argument.
For some reason you are looking for data to prove charter schools are bad, but you leave out the arguments that prove charter schools to be fantastic at least in NYC. Why? You also use a non scientific approach trying to select your data without even evaluating what it is saying.
“This charter school demonstrates my point quite well that parents make a huge difference in the educational success of children. The charter school parents who are “100% down with the program” are likely not addicts or neglectful or worse.”
Your argument fails. Did you listen to the interview? The same pool where the children are picked from are the same pool (50,000) that don’t make it in. That provides a comparison between the two groups and the children of those just as motivated parents that do not win the lottery needed to get into a charter school. Those children with those motivated parents do worse if they lose the lottery than they do if they win the lottery. The same thing was found in the siblings of charter school students. They don’t do as well either.
We all worry about those parents that have no motivation . They don’t care enough to apply to charter schools. Four things.
1) What about the 50,000 that lose the lottery? They can’t get into charter schools because some people don’t like charter schools and are unfairly blocking them in NYC. I think that 50,000 kids is very important.
2) Watching other kids succeed will likely incentive many other parents to apply if more spots are open.
3) Charter schools likely push the NYC public schools into providing better education even for those that do not have motivated parents.
4) Should the vast majority of kids be held back because some parents don’t care? Should they be held back because of The teachers union. Should they be held back because of some people’s views that neglect the best study ever on this subject?
If parents care and the schools are successful then there wouldn’t be a reason for charter schools though their use elsewhere might enhance the way we teach children.
“Taxpayers, who fund schools, should have a say in how their money is spent.”
I guess you have no concern for the taxpayers that are working hard to provide a chance for their children to get into private schools. You think your vote is more important than the parent’s? The parents are voting with their feet and putting in a lot of effort to do so.
The taxpayer is forced to pay for educating K-12. The taxpayer has a right to get more for their dollars and parents shouldn’t have to fight to get their kid into a school where the success rate is so much better just because the teacher’s union doesn’t like them.
S. Meyer,
I did provide data about New Orleans.
Nearly all schools in New Orleans are charter schools. As of 2017, 39% had a D or F rating. Of the 84 schools, I counted 33 that were rated D or F. Twelve got an F, which means 14% were failing.
https://thelensnola.org/2017/11/07/see-the-2017-school-performance-scores-all-in-one-place/
Here’s a bit more, though slightly dated:
“Our results indicate that, on average, and conditional on leaving a school, high-achieving students switch to high quality schools while low-achieving students transfer to low quality schools. Differential student mobility patterns in post-Katrina New Orleans provide suggestive evidence of a stratified school system and may lead to increased student segmentation based on student achievement and school quality.”
“Black, Hispanic, and low income students were also less likely to move to a high-achieving school than to an average-achieving school, while gifted status students were more likely to transfer to a high-achieving school. Special education students were more likely to move to a low-achieving school.”
School Choice, Student Mobility and School Quality: Evidence from post-Katrina New Orleans. Richard O. Welsh
“I did provide data about New Orleans.“
Yes you did, but it didn’t provide acceptable information or data. I ended up looking it up for myself and though I don’t have the data I usually like I do see the following:
What I saw was that before Katrina hit the school system was in terrible shape. The charter schools do not have optimal results but despite Katrina they are doing better than the public schools did even though Katrina should have made them perform worse.
You provided a comparison of charter schools but did not compare the education provided between charter schools and the public schools. None of your information does that so it is meaningless in this discussion. The only comparisons I quickly reviewed demonstrated that the charter schools were performing better than the public schools did in the past. I would have to look deeper to confirm though I think what I saw is basically correct.
Everything being said we do not have much knowledge on how the school system in New Orleans actually functions today or before. The NYC study does this comparison eliminating most of the variables and provides data that is scientific and can be used by others.
You should be looking at this study before drawing conclusions based on opinion where no comparisons with similar public schools have been made. One has to be careful for the teachers union is a powerful lobby and they will push the media to write the story they want written.
Olly,
“PR, you have beat this horse to death. Summation: public schools in your small community perform better than charter schools. Good, keep fighting for your unique circumstances.”
My small community is not unique. Many, many communities across the US are small communities where the people pay attention to the goings-on of their district. Could people be doing a better job of improving their districts? Yes. S. Meyer is arguing that charter schools are awesome and should be adopted everywhere. NYC is the unique circumstance.
It sounds to me like far too many people in NYC (and other very large cities) are struggling to personally self-govern, so, unsurprisingly, they are struggling as a community to self-govern. No wonder things are going badly. The people who do wish to self-govern are stuck when surrounded by a high percentage of struggling, poorly self-governing people.
I self-govern. I elect representatives to make decisions as a group about the use of my taxes and how the school is run. I discuss any concerns I have or suggestions I have about said issues. I discuss the district with my friends and neighbors and sometimes we have had to voice our collective concerns to the school board and administration.
I cannot do any of this with a charter school, despite them getting use of my tax dollars. I do not think this is appropriate at all.
S. Meyer is arguing that charter schools are awesome and should be adopted everywhere.
And you are arguing public schools are awesome… So what. Data exists to prove both to be true…depending. It’s the depending part you are not accepting. In this country, a lot depends on factors resulting from our freedom and liberty to be unique as individuals, as communities, as districts, as counties and as states.
“S. Meyer is arguing that charter schools are awesome and should be adopted everywhere. NYC is the unique circumstance.”
That is a terrible interpretation of what I have said.
I have been very specific and limited my statements of facts only to the NYC study. I didn’t say Charter schools are awesome. I said the results of the charter schools in NYC were awesome (or another word) compared to the results in the public schools. Additionally I provided data along with a citation providing all the data. I didn’t say they should be adopted everywhere. I said they should be considered everywhere and if the school system is good a charter school may not be successful or needed
To mischaracterize what another said so badly is offensive. You couldn’t distort what I said in a worse fashion than you did. What you are doing is equating everything to your experiences which is equal to N=1.
I won’t deal with how individuals in different communities can interact with charter schools because you have no knowledge of what you are talking about. Voluntary use of charter schools permits each parent to vote with their feet and have tremendous impact on the schools.
S. Meyer,
“You are creating scenarios that have little fact behind them in order to bolster your case while at the same time you discard the best study ever comparing public to charter schools.”
I am not ‘creating scenarios that have little fact behind them.
Neither am I discarding his research. I disagree with some elements of it. It isn’t necessarily an either-or, though it seems you are trying to make it so.
“You engage in blaming the parents”
There are parents that are a problem, for sure. Even the parents that are hoping to win the lottery at the school you cited, if they do win, quite a few decide they aren’t “100% down” with the program there and go elsewhere.
NYC districts are a basket case, for sure. “You are opting against what parents want ” mostly insofar as, from the perspective of a taxpayer, that it isn’t their money, it belongs to the taxpayer. Taxpayers should get a say in how and how much of their money is used. They often do not have that say so, especially with cyber charter schools.
“you are replacing parent’s wishes for the betterment of their children with what the state desires”
The state is not some monolithic entity–they presumably elect these representatives and can call them with their concerns and can vote them out of office if they are messing up. It is better if the elected representatives respect local control of school governance and implementation.
“I am not ‘creating scenarios that have little fact behind them.”
Then what were you creating? Where is the data of what you talk about where there is a comparison between public and charter schools?
“It isn’t necessarily an either-or, though it seems you are trying to make it so.”
I did not create an either or scenario that I can think of.
” Taxpayers should get a say in how and how much of their money is used.”
Maybe taxpayers shouldn’t have to pay school taxes. If the reason they pay taxes is to educate the children then the least we can do is educate the children. The charter schools in NYC succeeded many times over.
You have an odd idea of how we elect officials in NYC. de Blasio is considered by many the worst mayor in the country and in NYC’s history. Despite that he was elected for a second term.
Olly,
“It’s the depending part you are not accepting. In this country, a lot depends on factors resulting from our freedom and liberty to be unique as individuals, as communities, as districts, as counties and as states.”
I’m not sure exactly what you’re getting at. Are you talking about that which depends upon our willingness to be self-governing? Are you talking about things that interfere with self-governance (both within individuals and external to them), which are many? Could you elaborate?
Charter and public schools aren’t inherently good or bad. They depend on other factors.
S. Meyer,
“For some reason you are looking for data to prove charter schools are bad, but you leave out the arguments that prove charter schools to be fantastic at least in NYC. Why?”
Not exactly. You seem to be advocating charter schools as though they are the perfect answer to the educational problems that plague low-income kids. They may be part of the answer in some places. However, I do think Sowell has not taken some things into consideration in his analysis. I did listen to his interview (when you first brought it up awhile ago).
I brought up New Orleans for several reasons. It takes the concept of charter schools to its logical end–if all public schools go away and only charter schools are left, how effective, in general, are charter schools at educating low-income/disadvantaged students. They are doing better, as in, 70% of the public schools in New Orleans were failing prior to Katrina. Now, in a nearly 100% charter school platform, only 39% of schools are getting a D or F. So, yes, better, but even charters do not have a magic wand.
“Those children with those motivated parents do worse if they lose the lottery than they do if they win the lottery. The same thing was found in the siblings of charter school students. They don’t do as well either.”
That is an interesting difference. Perhaps it is an issue of accountability. I am not necessarily disputing the quality of curriculum, school culture, or beneficial aspects of relationships/teacher techniques–those may quite good. However, perhaps having the school consistently work to keep parents and kids accountable and focused on academic excellence is pertinent to the discussion.
“We all worry about those parents that have no motivation . They don’t care enough to apply to charter schools.”
So who gets left at public schools? Those kids whose parents have no motivation. If the public schools aren’t doing so hot with holding parents and kids accountable and the kids and parents aren’t motivated on top of it, then the performance at public schools suffers. If that continues, then the districts and charters schools would be segregated into higher-achieving/higher motivation platforms and low-achievement/low motivation platforms–all through self-selection–which is what appears to be happening in New Orleans.
“Charter schools likely push the NYC public schools into providing better education even for those that do not have motivated parents.”
I’m not confident that will happen, though I think they could definitely be implementing some of the recommendations for success that Paul Tough explored (and he went to some successful charter schools to see what they were doing to help make disadvantaged kids successful). That would go a long way. However, if NYC somehow expanded charter schools the way New Orleans has, leaving only a handful of selective public schools and private schools with the rest as charters, then there would still be a distribution of highly successful to dismally failing schools.
“I guess you have no concern for the taxpayers that are working hard to provide a chance for their children to get into private schools. You think your vote is more important than the parent’s?”
If taxpayers had greater control over how much and how their money was spent at charter schools, I wouldn’t fuss much. Right now, their money is being used and they cannot oversee this process or voice their concerns or vote anyone out who is making poor decisions. The school simply fails and their money is gone.
“The parents are voting with their feet and putting in a lot of effort to do so.”
It isn’t *their* money. It is the taxpayers’ money.
“The taxpayer is forced to pay for educating K-12. The taxpayer has a right to get more for their dollars and parents shouldn’t have to fight to get their kid into a school where the success rate is so much better”
I agree. With public schools they can demand better, they can complain if their money is being poorly spent or the educational outcomes are suboptimal; they can participate with district administrators to improve the system. Can’t do that with charter schools since those are private businesses.
With public schools they can demand better, they can complain if their money is being poorly spent or the educational outcomes are suboptimal; they can participate with district administrators to improve the system. Can’t do that with charter schools since those are private businesses.
Which education model (generally) provides the parents the most control over the education they are paying for? Is it the one where they have a voice in how the system is run, or is it the one where they can walk away and spend their money somewhere else? Which model (generally) provides the educators and administrators the most incentive to meet the needs of the parents?
“Not exactly. You seem to be advocating charter schools as though they are the perfect answer to the educational problems that plague low-income kids. “
No, I advocate for choice. Charter schools can be one of those choices.
“They may be part of the answer in some places. However, I do think Sowell has not taken some things into consideration in his analysis.”
Sowell talked about NYC. He did not suggest all places were the same.
“I brought up New Orleans for several reasons. It takes the concept of charter schools to its logical end–if all public schools go away and only charter schools are left, how effective, in general, are charter schools at educating low-income/disadvantaged students.”
That was not the way you originally portrayed things, but the question you presently present is valid. If you remember one of my points was that I felt competition was an essential part of improvement. That should answer the question you raised. Additionally, I added that I felt the money should follow the student.
None of your data provided adequate information on how the underlying systems worked in other communities so there was little way of describing what was actually happening. Suffice it to say New Orleans charter schools, no matter how bad the system is, according to your own numbers show that they are doing better than the public schools did. Improvement of school systems so badly damaged are a step by step process. Politics and teachers unions get in the way.
You discount the improvement in New Orleans but for those students that are part of the improvement their lives are much better for it. New Orleans can do better, but let’s remember the lives saved by the first step.
“So who gets left at public schools? Those kids whose parents have no motivation. “
In NYC 50,000 students have enough motivation that they lost the lottery and were forced to attend the public schools. That means many of that 50,000 have lost the ability to obtain a better life. I wouldn’t say that is a wasted effort on behalf of those winning the lottery or those promoting more charter schools.
In my mind, the idea is to start a trend. When trends start others become involved when before the trend they remained oblivious to the advantages. That trend forces NYC to provide better student education. Why do you think there weren’t enough places for the students that lost the lottery? The answer is $1Billion dollars more would have left the public school system meaning a reduction in the teacher payroll and a subsequent reduction in teacher dues to the union.
“charters schools would be segregated into higher-achieving/higher motivation platforms and low-achievement/low motivation platforms–all through self-selection–which is what appears to be happening in New Orleans.”
You don’t know what is happening in New Orleans. What you are saying is to destroy tens of thousands of children because otherwise the non-motivated will be left by themselves. That has been the logic of the left for decades. Instead what can happen is that this will incentivize some of the non-motivated students and provide an ability to concentrate on those that are stuck in a bad place.
These are children and you are treating them like pawns. I’m well acquainted with the young from minority communities even those that run afoul of the law. Many are essentially good kids who are being destroyed by leftist ideas. Read Sowell’s autobiography and how he states he would have miserably failed if he were young at a later time period. We must give these kids a chance.
Again you talk about New Orleans without providing essential data. That is unfair to these children who need a chance based on real evidence where people are looking out for the kids and not the politicians or the teachers unions.
“If taxpayers had greater control over how much and how their money was spent at charter schools, I wouldn’t fuss much. Right now, their money is being used and they cannot oversee this process or voice their concerns or vote anyone out who is making poor decisions. The school simply fails and their money is gone.”
In other words you think the state can provide for the children better than the parents can. In NYC the study demonstrates that parents that chose charter schools were right and those that followed the state were wrong.
“It isn’t *their* money. It is the taxpayers’ money.”
The money was to ensure an education for the children not your political dreams. If you feel the way you do then you should e advocating an end to school taxes.
“Can’t do that with charter schools since those are private businesses.”
Nonsense. The parents are voting with their feet and the state is making sure that the education requirements are met. The charter schools succeeded beyond anything the state dreamed could happen and now the state is scared.
S. Meyer,
“You provided a comparison of charter schools but did not compare the education provided between charter schools and the public schools. None of your information does that so it is meaningless in this discussion.”
Do you wish charter schools to expand? I think the answer is yes. To take that to its logical conclusion–expansion until, effectively, only charter schools and maybe a handful of selective public schools and outright private schools exist–then New Orleans is a pretty good case study. To look at how effectively charter schools are performing in a system where they are now, effectively, only competing against one another, then there is still quite a problem of school failure. This is actually a great opportunity; now we can start asking questions about why do kids struggle to learn? Set aside the platform (public vs private vs charter) and focus on the underlying issues. School culture, curricula, teacher preparedness, and organization (etc) all play a role–but there are other factors. Addressing all the variables, not just the platform, will help kids learn better.
“In 2016, there were 158 charter schools in North Carolina (Public Schools of North Carolina, 2015) and among those with 80% or higher students of color in enrollment, 36 out of 40 of those schools have less than 60% of students performing on grade level (Public Schools of North Carolina, 2015).” “Since the removal of the cap on charter schools, a greater number of charter schools serve predominantly white and middle class families (Ladd, Clotfelter, & Holbein, 2015)” “Secondly, between 2005 and 2015, 7 out of the 9 charter schools that closed had greater than 85% racial minority students. If current performance trends continue, all but a handful of charter schools that serve economically disadvantaged students will close under the new standards for charter schools, whereas ones that serve non-economically disadvantaged and white students will grow.”
A PORTRAIT OF TWO PUBLIC CHARTER SCHOOLS IN PURSUIT OF EQUITY AND EXCELLENCE. Son Young Hahm
https://www.proquest.com/docview/2006663558
I include the above research to show that there is something else going on beneath even charter schools in regards to helping disadvantaged students succeed educationally.
“Do you wish charter schools to expand? I think the answer is yes.”
Prairie, You are totally wrong because you have not carefully read what I have said. I want parent choice. I want better education. If the public schools can provide what was needed we wouldn’t need charter schools.
“To take that to its logical conclusion–expansion until, effectively, only charter schools and maybe a handful of selective public schools and outright private schools exist.
That is not a logical conclusion at least based on what I have said.
That is a creation in your own mind, not mine. Choice means parents choose, not me and certainly not YOU!
“–then New Orleans is a pretty good case study.”
New Orleans is not a good case study at all. First you do not have the appropriate data. You have not provided a comparison between the public school system before Katrina and the charter school system today. You have not accounted for the hurricane’s negative effect on the charter system. Yet, from what I have read, though many poor schools exist in New Orleans the charter schools nonetheless are performing better than the public schools did.
You haven’t provided the data as to which direction the charter schools are going nor have you described how the charter schools function in the system. You haven’t provided comparative testing. In other words you have provided nothing that can provide anyone with enough material to make an informed decision. You haven’t even provided the basic policy of the New Orleans school system.
Regarding North Carolina schools. Once again you have little useful data and are not comparing like students in a public school to like students in a charter school. You are only putting sentences together that do not provide the answer to the question that was proven in the NYC schools using like students where the variables were carefully controlled.
It seems you do not understand the difference between a scientific study and the production of random facts.
S. Meyer,
““S. Meyer is arguing that charter schools are awesome and should be adopted everywhere. NYC is the unique circumstance.”
That is a terrible interpretation of what I have said.”
I did not intentionally misinterpret what you have said. Some of your (as Allan) statements about charter schools have been general:
“Encourage Charter Schools and permit the money to follow the student.” August 7, 2020 at 4:01 PM
“No matter how one looks at it the competition charter schools provide can help make public schools better.” August 10, 2020 at 5:33 PM both this and the above were from the Pittsburgh professor blog post
“I said they should be considered everywhere and if the school system is good a charter school may not be successful or needed” “To mischaracterize what another said so badly is offensive.” Yes, it is.
I did not intentionally mischaracterize what you’ve said. I do try to be a straight player in discussions. I am sorry to have, even unintentionally, caused offense.
“I did not intentionally misinterpret what you have said. Some of your (as Allan) statements about charter schools have been general:”
You absolutely did misinterpret (I don’t judge intention) what I said over and over again. My comment was for the money to follow the child where the decisions were totally voluntary. I said I was open to all forms of education and not tied into one.
You point out that I said: “Encourage Charter Schools and permit the money to follow the student.” August 7, 2020 at 4:01 PM
That is pretty clear. Instead of discouraging charter schools I want to encourage them and other forms of education. I want competition and voluntary choice where the parents can help choose the best school possible for their child.
“I disagree. I have provided data for New Orleans and now North Carolina. I am not equating *everything* to my experience.”
Show me where you compared charter schools with public schools making sure the important variables were managed. I don’t know that any similar study has ever been done before in the US. Random facts do not provide a tiny fraction of the information on this subject that was provided by the Sowell study.
S. Meyer,
“What you are doing is equating everything to your experiences which is equal to N=1.”
I disagree. I have provided data for New Orleans and now North Carolina. I am not equating *everything* to my experience. I am including my observations of my area (not just my district, but the region) while taking into consideration that many, many districts throughout the country are in small towns and small cities–both of which, having that small town atmosphere, often pay attention to their schools.
“I won’t deal with how individuals in different communities can interact with charter schools because you have no knowledge of what you are talking about.”
Huh? I’m not sure to what you are referring. My knowledge of charter schools and public schools can always be better, but I do not have “no knowledge” of what I’m talking about.
S. Meyer,
“Where is the data of what you talk about where there is a comparison between public and charter schools?”
I haven’t talked about this.
“It isn’t necessarily an either-or, though it seems you are trying to make it so.”
I did not create an either or scenario that I can think of.”
I’m starting to wonder whether we are talking slightly past one another. That’s easy to do in a conversation that is typed and separated by hours or days. I was unclear, I think.
Here’s what I wrote in response in context:
““You are creating scenarios that have little fact behind them in order to bolster your case while at the same time you discard the best study ever comparing public to charter schools.”
I am not ‘creating scenarios that have little fact behind them.
Neither am I discarding his research. I disagree with some elements of it. It isn’t necessarily an either-or, though it seems you are trying to make it so.”
“you discard the best study ever comparing public to charter schools”
You said that I am discarding Sowell’s study. I am not. Neither do I have to fully accept it. It isn’t an either-or. I think there are good things to consider in his study. Nonetheless, I disagree with some elements of it–that is not the same as ‘discarding his research’. I am not inclined to throw the baby out with the bathwater, so to speak.
“I’m starting to wonder whether we are talking slightly past one another. “
Prairie, I don’t think so. I provided the Sowell study that I believe changed the dynamics of the charter school vs public school debate. By dealing extremely well with the variables the study answered a lot of the arguments based on experiment that before were more open to debate. Additionally you mischaracterized what I said. Both of those things pointed to a bias on your part that I cannot explain.
Nowhere is the claim made that what was done in NYC could be done everywhere. There are structures that can destroy the charter system in NYC and people are at work trying to do just that. One of the schools already had to bend to political and teacher union pressures that will probably make it less successful. Many wish to see the charter school system in NYC destroyed.
“Neither am I discarding his research. I disagree with some elements of it.”
That is a generalized statement that keeps all your bases open. Go ahead and tell us what elements of the Sowell study you disagree with. You already provided some that were adequately answered in the video that you said you listened to.
You even repeat your disagreements saying “Nonetheless, I disagree with some elements of it–that is not the same as ‘discarding his research’.” but again don’t point out what those disagreements are.
I don’t believe any one study totally proves any one point but the left doesn’t deal with science. They deal with how they feel which changes in a second. They have prescribed solutions that made things worse. This study, however, demonstrated how things were made a lot better for a lot of students that otherwise could end up in jail or dead in the streets. The major party hurt by this approach is the teachers union and they have the political power that is causing many of the problems for minority students. Your responses demonstrate that you lack sufficient understanding of the politics wielded by the teachers union.
Allan,
If I understand Prairie Rose’s original concern, it was that one or more charter schools in her district did not have any oversight from the taxpayers (community), similar to the oversight of the public school(s). As a private company accepting public funds, fundamentally that’s not acceptable. But how are these charter schools performing in comparison to the public schools? If they are underperforming, the oversight should be reflected in parents removing their children and putting them into the better performing public schools. If they are performing as good or better, then what is the concern? If the issue is something other than “education” performance, like some of the social problems reflected in the community demographics that affect the students, then in my opinion, those are for the community to resolve and not the schools.
Do I have her original position stated correctly?
Olly, you have her intent stated correctly but apparently her community is small and has a lot of parental involvement with a good school system. I think she lacks the understanding that pure democracies do not work. Her viewpoint is that 50%+ can vote to keep children stupid when the parents and the child desire intelligence. I further do not believe she understood the study despite the fact it was clearly explained by Sowell.
You and I are on the same page despite the name you used when you referred to me. The only one that will bother to think about that pleasant and acceptable faux pas is anonymous who spends his days and nights looking for the lost person of, Allan.
Agreed and noted…S. Meyer. 🙂
Olly,
“Charter and public schools aren’t inherently good or bad. They depend on other factors.”
I agree they depend on other factors. Charters are slightly tipped to the “bad” side only due to the issues with funding. Charter schools are private businesses using public monies and the public does not have a say in how their money is used. They are not represented and they are the ones paying for it. That is my main concern with charters.
“Charters are slightly tipped to the “bad” side only due to the issues with funding.”
Prairie, don’t you think the public schools are greatly tipped to the “bad side” since if they permitted the charter school system in NYC to take all the losers of the lottery the NYC school system would lose $1Billion?
“Charter schools are private businesses using public monies and the public does not have a say in how their money is used.”
Really? What makes them private businesses and the school system not a private business? It’s more of a label. The charter school system has to live up to two expectations, NYS and parents. The public school system isn’t living up to either yet people are earning money from the system without doing their jobs or making sure the children are proficient in math and English. A more accurate description is the public schools are private fiefdoms while charter schools are working to solve the needs of the parents and children.
Since you like the doctor analogy, charter schools are like private doctors that accept Medicare. The NYC school system is like the worst of Medicaid where many people remain untreated.
Olly,
“Which education model (generally) provides the parents the most control over the education they are paying for? Is it the one where they have a voice in how the system is run, or is it the one where they can walk away and spend their money somewhere else? Which model (generally) provides the educators and administrators the most incentive to meet the needs of the parents?”
Those are good questions.
“Which education model (generally) provides the parents the most control over the education they are paying for? Is it the one where they have a voice in how the system is run, or is it the one where they can walk away and spend their money somewhere else?”
I think it is more than just parents, though, since other people in the community have an incentive towards the community’s children being well-educated. The model that allows for taxpayers and parents to have a voice in the system is better. It is nice to have choice, however, because that can, possibly, be used as a bargaining chip. Public money to fund public schools does not belong to individuals, however; it is the community’s money.
“Which model (generally) provides the educators and administrators the most incentive to meet the needs of the parents?”
Public schools have an incentive to meet the needs of parents and taxpayers because the money is controlled by the taxpayers and the school board is voted on by the citizenry and will be turned over if things are going badly. Families can leave districts if they are unhappy, so the district is under pressure by community leaders to aim for excellence in order to attract families to the community.
A private business can tell you to go elsewhere if you are not “100% down” with their model.
I think it is more than just parents, though, since other people in the community have an incentive towards the community’s children being well-educated…The model that allows for taxpayers and parents to have a voice in the system is better…Public money to fund public schools does not belong to individuals, however; it is the community’s money.
As long as you perceive the control of my property (taxes) and the decision of how I want to invest in my children’s education, as under the control of the collective, then we will be in disagreement. The communities interest toward my children’s education is and always will be subordinate to my rights.
Public schools have an incentive to meet the needs of parents and taxpayers because the money is controlled by the taxpayers and the school board is voted on by the citizenry and will be turned over if things are going badly. Families can leave districts if they are unhappy,…A private business can tell you to go elsewhere if you are not “100% down” with their model.
Theoretically, both public and private schools have the same incentive. Meet the needs of the parents. Notice however that you fail to acknowledge only one of the two will remain in existence if they fail. Yet in the public model, you view the families only choice as leaving the district. But in the private model, you view families as victims of the private business. A private business mind you that failed and no longer exists. If your theoretical public school incentive was actually effective as a rule, then no public school district would fail, year after year, election after election. Instead they do fail. And bond measures are passed to increase taxpayer funding for these failed schools/districts. And they still fail. Wash. Rinse. Repeat.
“As long as you perceive the control of my property (taxes) and the decision of how I want to invest in my children’s education, as under the control of the collective, then we will be in disagreement.”
Olly, your comment to Prairie is right on target. Your later comment about the schools not improving after everyone votes year after year fully explains where Prairies theories have gone wrong. I don’t know what she is thinking but it almost sounds as if this is an emotional subject to her. She has not realized the implications of Sowell’s words nor has she fully recognized everything he said. I had to argue against points she made about the NY study that were clearly pointed out by Sowell. She has also terribly mischaracterized what I have said in my responses.
Yes, I am strong on charter schools, but I cite only the proof of the NYC study. I make it clear that I would not force charter schools on anyone. In fact I have said more than once if the school system is doing well a charter school might not be able to survive. Since I recommended voluntary parental discretion regarding the education of the young I wanted the parents to choose. If charter schools were worse than the alternative public school no one would choose them. I did say the competition by charter schools might improve both the public school and charter school systems.
I am a bit distressed by Prairie’s disregard for the printed word but I will get to those responses slowly when I have a chance. In the meantime thanks for all your comments. The minority students that are dying in the streets and being incarcerated before growing up need to be better educated. We need people that care enough to actually study what was accomplished in NYC and work towards improvement of all systems. Our education system today is in a terrible state and has been getting worse for years.
I don’t know what she is thinking but it almost sounds as if this is an emotional subject to her.
Thank you. I’ve followed this exchange, at times at a distance, primarily because PR seemed to approach this subject from some strange, emotional perspective. Her arguments took on a weird, collectivist tone and seemed to completely abandon any notion that taxpaying citizens have any individual rights. I still believe she holds conservative views, but this topic makes me question how committed she is to that. I asked her before if she has a dog in this fight and she denied it. So yes, something’s not right.
“Public money to fund public schools does not belong to individuals, however; it is the community’s money.”
Again, since you like doctor analogies. Liken charter schools to a doctor who accepts Medicare. The patient can choose any doctor of his choice. Alternatively the public school version where the patient goes to the clinic and is treated by someone other than his choosing whether the doctor is nice to him or not.
“Public schools have an incentive to meet the needs of parents and taxpayers because the money is controlled by the taxpayers and the school board is voted on by the citizenry and will be turned over if things are going badly. Families can leave districts if they are unhappy, so the district is under pressure by community leaders to aim for excellence in order to attract families to the community.”
So why is the NYC public school system so bad?
“A private business can tell you to go elsewhere if you are not “100% down” with their model.”
You have it backward. private business has to be better than others or they lose their clientele to the others. It is the person forced to use only one private business that suffers.
S. Meyer,
“If the public schools can provide what was needed we wouldn’t need charter schools.”
I am glad we are in agreement.
“You have not provided a comparison between the public school system before Katrina and the charter school system today.”
I know, because that has not been the main focus of my points—which is better or worse than the other. I do have some concerns about accurate comparisons between charters and public schools (if the comparisons really aren’t apples to apples, how can you really understand the truth of the situation?).
My main concern overall has to do with the kids who are struggling in spite of even the opportunities presented by charters.
Regarding the data, I cannot remember whether I included even a little of it at some point (like I said, that is not the focus of my concern). Here is what I recall, though it is somewhat tangential to my main concern. Prior to Katrina, something like 70% of New Orleans schools were Ds or Fs. Now, after Katrina, with a school system nearly entirely comprised of charter schools, about 40% are Ds or Fs. That is much better! Children are being bused all over the city to get to their school of choice. However 40% at a D or F still ain’t great, though.
Why? Is it just poor management or poor organization or poor teaching or fraud? Maybe for some. I did include research out of New Orleans, though, that indicated that self-selection was leading to divergences in achievement, though. High-achieving kids were heading to high achieving charters and low-achieving kids switched to low-achieving charters. Quite often this was correlated with income, too. The data out of North Carolina paralleled these findings.
This is still troubling, even though charters obviously helped improve the education of many, many kids, there’s still that sticky 14% of schools that are outright failing with another 25% that are Ds. What about those kids? What is impeding achievement for them? Paul Tough explores some of these issues in his book Helping Children Succeed. Have you had a chance to read it? It is short—less than 200 pages. I included the pdf in a link somewhere on here.
“In other words you have provided nothing that can provide anyone with enough material to make an informed decision.”
Informed decision about what? I’m not trying to ‘win’ an argument between which is better—public schools or charter schools—as though it was some wrestling match. I have repeatedly stated that my concerns about charters are about funding and self-governance—neither of which has much to do with quality (though self-governance does, to some degree).
“I am glad we are in agreement.”
So far, prairie, you have been quite negative regarding charter schools so I don’t see the agreement.
>>“You have not provided a comparison between the public school system before Katrina and the charter school system today.”
>I know, because that has not been the main focus of my points which is better or worse than the other.”
Really? One has to wonder what your focus is? We are looking to educate our children. Let us not lose sight of the purpose of education.
“I do have some concerns about accurate comparisons between charters and public schools “
Where do your concerns lie with regard to the Sowell study? It provided enough excellent data to answer the concerns you have raised most often.
“My main concern overall has to do with the kids who are struggling in spite of even the opportunities presented by charters.”
The NYC kids were struggling terribly and faced with street violence, drugs, uneducated parents, poor nutrition, minority status and a whole host of other things yet they did quite well in the charter schools in comparison to the public schools with the variables accounted for. What is your problem with that study?
“However 40% at a D or F still ain’t great, though.”
It isn’t, but when you provided your ‘proofs’ you didn’t provide how the system worked. Charter schools can be as bad as the public schools if they are working in the same fashion as the public schools did in NYC.
“High-achieving kids were heading to high achieving charters and low-achieving kids switched to low-achieving charters.”
But you supplied no variables to tell us what was actually happening. We don’t know if the low achieving kids would have been high achievers in the high achieving charters. You have inadequate data to tell us. You brought up North Carolina as well, but also with inadequate data. You could bring up 100 examples like North Carolina but without the data it might as well be 0 examples because what is being said is worthless in the context of this discussion.
“there’s still that sticky 14% of schools that are outright failing with another 25% that are Ds.”
That takes one back to the kindergarten example and the pair of socks that caused the child to be sent home. Children have to learn the rules at an early age and they have to be strictly enforced. Learning to abide by the rules is part of the education process. That is one of my guesses as to where failures arise. The children already learned the wrong lessons or when younger the rules weren’t enforced.
You can tell me whatever you wish that Tough said in relation to the Sowell study. He wrote the book before the Sowell study was published. What studies did he use? I don’t now him but there is a lot of psychobabble out there that lead to changes in education, management of crime and sex education and that psychobabble made things worse. What did Trough say that had proof attached where the variables were adequately managed? I am not saying it is a bad book or anything like that. You haven’t provided me with any reason to read it. If it is like a lot of the other stuff that plays the blame game I have no interest.
Olly and S. Meyer,
You both bring up interesting points. I will try to get to them later today or tomorrow. We have been spending time with family and friends online and off, so my time has been limited and sleep is a good thing.
I will note again that I do NOT teach public school or work for a public school in any fashion. I homeschool my kids in an eclectic/Classical fashion. My District is fairly conservative, but they could be more rigorous than they are, which more and more parents are realizing and making a fuss about. I care very much about public education because I believe it is an important element of local self-governance. It is part of the balance between personal liberty and the public good of a community (right now my community has started to realize they need to step up their game as a community in this arena). I am neither conservative or liberal; I am an Independent who is fairly centrist though somewhat small-l libertarian-leaning (perhaps more personally than politically). I tend to look at the nuances of issues and I try to thread my philosophy along the lines of both conservative and liberal ideals because both are needed to avoid either stagnation or chaos. I tend to vote for Republicans and Libertarians, though not always when the candidate is a more conservative, old-fashioned Democrat (they seem to be as rare as hen’s teeth as of late). I am well-aware of the problems of mob-rule associated with democracy; you have seen my arguments in favor of the Electoral College, for example.
“If it [Paul Tough’s book] is like a lot of the other stuff that plays the blame game I have no interest.”
The Paul Tough book is sideways from the public vs charter debate. Many of the methods of helping kids succeed are observed at charter schools. He is looking for those concepts, methods, attitudes, and organization that best helps kids–particularly disadvantaged kids. He also examines those things (like messed up cortisol and attachment) that interferes with learning. He does not argue which platform is better than the other. He goes to places that are implementing things that are working to help kids, period. For example, he visited charter schools associated with EL Education in Chicago, Washington, and NYC. I also recommend his book How Children Succeed, but Helping Children Succeed is shorter and more focused on what works for kids more or less across the board.
I would also recommend Katherine Birbalsingh’s interviews on Dave Rubin and Triggernometry.
I will have to continue to the discussion later. The kids are going to play outside soon with our friends who will be visiting on this lovely sunny day and I think I will join them. Or, drink coffee in my very sunny living room that is lit up with suncatchers and the Christmas tree.
Thanks Prairie Rose. Here is a great article out today from the Federalist that gets to the heart of matter.
https://thefederalist.com/2020/12/30/teachers-unions-must-never-be-allowed-to-ban-kids-from-an-education-again/
Olly,
“the decision of how I want to invest in my children’s education, as under the control of the collective, then we will be in disagreement. The communities interest toward my children’s education is and always will be subordinate to my rights.”
Then no one should be put out about kids failing at school. If the parents in these communities do not want to invest in their children’s education, then that would be their right. And, no one should be bothered about the vast problem of obesity and chronic lifestyle-related health problems afflicting a large proportion of the population. Yet, we are. The individual is not separate from the community. There is a balance between the sovereignty of the individual and the public good.
Understanding the nuances of these terms is important for civil society.
I perceive ‘the collective’ to be different from ‘the public good’. What do the Founders say of ‘the public good’?
The individual is not separate from the community. There is a balance between the sovereignty of the individual and the public good.
So we have community rights and not individual rights? And if we have both, the balance is always between the individual and the public good? Does that mean a taxpayer/resident in your community must put the public good before their own self interests?
Olly,
“The individual is not separate from the community. There is a balance between the sovereignty of the individual and the public good.”
So we have community rights and not individual rights? And if we have both, the balance is always between the individual and the public good? Does that mean a taxpayer/resident in your community must put the public good before their own self interests?”
“So we have community rights and not individual rights?”
We have individual rights.
“Does that mean a taxpayer/resident in your community must put the public good before their own self interests?””
Must? Of course not.
“And if we have both, the balance is always between the individual and the public good?”
I do not think we have community rights (we have individual rights), but, there are concerns of the wider community. This is where I start to consider Cicero’s ‘On Duties”. I do think there is a balance between the two, though I’d generally say that an individual’s self-interest should more or less align with the interests of the community.
“In De Republica, Scipio insists that “community is not any collection of human beings brought together in any sort of way, but an assemblage of people in large numbers associated in an agreement with respect to justice and a partnership for the common good.”
https://digitalcommons.law.yale.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1043&context=yjlh&httpsredir=1&referer=
Apparently, Karl Marx detested Cicero as an “enemy of popular rule”–same link.
I do think there is a balance between the two, though I’d generally say that an individual’s self-interest should more or less align with the interests of the community.
More or less? That’s a meaningless statement.
“In De Republica, Scipio insists that “community is not any collection of human beings brought together in any sort of way, but an assemblage of people in large numbers associated in an agreement with respect to justice and a partnership for the common good.”
I have no issues with that statement as long as justice and the common good is for the equal security of our individual rights. Put another way, the interests of the community that infringe anyone’s natural right to the security of their lives, liberty and property are never legitimate.
Apparently Peter, your reading on this subject is quite limited. I posted a video that you should listen to because it involved a scientific study comparing charter schools to public schools where the variables were carefully controlled and the testing done by the state. (This is a scientific study, not an opinion piece from a 20 year old at the WaPo who could have benefitted from one of these charter schools. You do believe in science, don’t you?)
I will post one example which is the first in a long list and is not one of the best charter schools. There are many others that showed even better results. This particular choice was from a normal charter school.
P= public school C= charter school representing percent at any specific level
Very Below proficiency: P28 C7
Below Proficiency P37 C19
Proficiency P33 C68
Above proficiency P1 C7
Those are spectacular results from a charter school and it was more average than exceptional.
If you care about education, you will comment on these numbers and perhaps go to the book that has all the schools listed and the results. You will look at how carefully the variables were controlled. Alternatively you can provide scientifically run studies where variables are as closely controlled and see if you can argue the contrary. You can’t. This study was performed in NYC schools.
Nearly all schools in New Orleans are charter schools. As of 2017, 39% had a D or F rating. Of the 84 schools, I counted 33 that were rated D or F. Twelve got an F, which means 14% were failing.
https://thelensnola.org/2017/11/07/see-the-2017-school-performance-scores-all-in-one-place/
Apparently, only 10% of nationwide public schools were considered failing.
https://www.fairtest.org/esea-ten-percent-u-s-schools-labeled-failing
Since the charter schools in New Orleans are failing at only a slightly higher rate than the public schools are nationwide, that seems to indicate that there is something else going on besides mismanagement, fraud, and a different platform.
Those issues underlying education overall need to be addressed.
Nearly all schools in New Orleans are charter schools.
Your citation is not a comparison between public and charter. Were any schools competing with one another? Competition is the key.
In NYC the variables were adjusted as best as they could be adjusted. The same students were separated in the same school buildings. The charter schools performed extraordinarily better than public schools.
Your example proves nothing. Deal with Sowell’s analysis which has the data your example lacks.
S. Meyer,
“Were any schools competing with one another? Competition is the key.”
Huh? If they’re all charter then they are all competing with each other.
My example shows that charter schools, far too often, struggle to educate disadvantaged kids at about the same rate that public schools struggle.
“Huh? If they’re all charter then they are all competing with each other.”
The way you portrayed the school system in New Orleans sounds like they could have replaced each public school with a charter school which essentially leaves all the bad incentives in place. They wouldn’t be competing with one another unless the students had a choice of schools to go to.
“My example shows that charter schools, far too often, struggle to educate disadvantaged kids at about the same rate that public schools struggle.”
You say that despite the fact that the largest school system in the country proved you wrong. The Charter schools took failing students and made them into proficient students with a future ahead of them.
S. Meyer,
“The way you portrayed the school system in New Orleans sounds like they could have replaced each public school with a charter school which essentially leaves all the bad incentives in place. They wouldn’t be competing with one another unless the students had a choice of schools to go to.”
They do–they bus kids all over the place, and, failed schools get shut down quite frequently.
One needs to get to the specifics and one needs to look at how the charter school replacement was implemented.
You haven’t provided any statistics and I didn’t bother because I don’t have those facts at hand. However start with the questions..
Why and when was the charter school system created? After Katrina decimated the school system That is a hard act to follow.
Are students doing better or worse in the charter schools? From my understanding they are doing better and more end up going to college. I didn’t state this before because I don’t have adequate numbers to back such a statement up. That being said, that is what I have heard from whatever news I have read.
Are the politicians playing games? New Orleans does certain things in a very political manner and has had incompetent leadership. Think of what happened during Katrina. People might choose leaders but then they have to live with the results. The people chose badly.
S. Meyer,
“New Orleans does certain things in a very political manner and has had incompetent leadership.”
Kind of like New York City, then, per this remark: 😉
“You have an odd idea of how we elect officials in NYC. de Blasio is considered by many the worst mayor in the country and in NYC’s history. Despite that he was elected for a second term.”
Yet, earlier NYC had Giuliani who was fantastic and brought the city back to life. Bloomberg was iffy. I can’t figure out if he was a net zero, negative or positive. My suspicion is a net negative since he lost the momentum of the Giuliani years.
Any mention of the teacher’s unions efforts to keep the public schools closed?
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2020-12-21/affluent-families-ditch-public-schools-widening-u-s-inequality
worrying about schools now is whistling past the graveyard. there is either rapid effort to radically transform our corrupt federal regime or little will matter. 4 years out is an event horizon beyond which we can’t see, if the pace of change keeps up like it did in 2020. God only knows where it all will end up.
you have been warned
Saloth Sar
Kurtz,
Warned? You’re a tad late. Anyone with a functioning brain already knows that.
Olly,
I haven’t looked at this for very many other areas. That does not seem to be the case in my district. My area is actually very conservative in general and the teacher’s union does not seem to have much power (in comparison to other areas). From what I’ve heard, we are closed due to lack of subs (to fill in for sick teachers or to fill in for teachers with health concerns who’d go on leave) and lack of room to try to separate kids per the governor’s orders. The district also seems to be split by those who are afraid of the virus spreading by having kids in school and those who aren’t as worried. We were on a crazy hybrid format until “cases starting increasing” in my area and the holidays (and the fear of those becoming “super-spreader” events) loomed.
I need to finish reading the article, but this line struck me:
“One is thriving after switching from online public school to in-person private education.”
That doesn’t sound like the teacher’s unions so much as affluent families wanting and being able to get in-person education.
Thank you for sharing the article; I hadn’t seen it.
“That doesn’t sound like the teacher’s unions so much as affluent families wanting and being able to get in-person education.”
In NYC the teachers union fought to keep the schools closed. The disadvantaged frequently don’t have adequate Internet connections and adult supervision. Time to watch out for the disadvantaged kids.
S. Meyer,
NYC sounds like it’s a mess coming and going. It does not reflect what’s going on in the rest of the country and the rest of the country is glad of that and would like to keep it that way.
I agree that disadvantaged kids need more people looking out for them.
“NYC sounds like it’s a mess ”
Your example in argument was New Orleans. Is New Orleans not a mess?
There are international statistics that I don’t trust other than as a potential indicator. Have you not noted that our international ratings in the education sector have fallen? Have you not gone into a grocery store asking for a third of a pound only to be greeted by an empty stare while he returns a quarter of a pound. When you ask which is bigger a quarter or a third have you not noted the amount of mental activity necessary to provide an answer?
At best those schools not failing aren’t doing as well as they should. Mediocrity is not something one should be working towards.
You seem more concerned about the teachers and a whole host of other things but the end product we are trying to produce is educated children. We are not doing that job very well.
S. Meyer,
“Have you not gone into a grocery store asking for a third of a pound only to be greeted by an empty stare while he returns a quarter of a pound. When you ask which is bigger a quarter or a third have you not noted the amount of mental activity necessary to provide an answer?”
No, I have not had this experience.
“At best those schools not failing aren’t doing as well as they should. Mediocrity is not something one should be working towards.”
I agree that mediocrity is not something to be working towards. and that we need to be doing better. Parents, right now, are casting a very sharp eye on the quality of their children’s education if they hadn’t before. Rigor and excellence has come up to a far greater degree than it has in the past at my local school board and parent meetings as of late.
“You seem more concerned about the teachers and a whole host of other things but the end product we are trying to produce is educated children. We are not doing that job very well.”
I haven’t even mentioned teachers. The end product of educated children depends on many factors. For disadvantaged kids, dealing with lousy nutrition and other issues that affect executive function definitely interfere with helping them get educated. That isn’t all, though. They are already starting school with a smaller vocabulary than their peers who come from more well-to-do families. Have you read Paul Tough’s book Helping Children Succeed? It looks at many of the factors that schools (any schools–including charter schools) consider and things they implement that not only especially help disadvantaged kids succeed but are also important for any kid’s success. It is pretty short–only 114 pages, not counting the index. It passes Dennis Prager’s idea that very well-written books are less than like 250 pages or something. 🙂
https://paultough.com/helping/pdf/Helping-Children-Succeed-Paul-Tough.pdf?pdf=hcs-pdf-landing
Educational success is a system with a boatload of factors going into it. Family is a factor, student health is a factor, school culture is a factor, district organization is a factor, curriculum quality, teacher quality, testing companies, federal and state control (depending on the state), unions, politics, etc.
I agree that we could be doing a far better job. Douglas Murray commented on a podcast that Americans, as a whole, seem to be badly educated, particularly in history. I’m not surprised. Why teach history, or if it is taught, why teach it well? It ain’t covered on the all-mighty state tests.
Parents can demand better of their districts. There’s a great deal of trendiness and fads that seem to ‘inform’ administration rather than wisdom.
Our constitutional republic requires of its citizenry the will and ability to debate a fair bit, to know about the world and how these things interconnect and affect one another, as well as an ability to innovate and consider issues from several angles. Thus, what should education for even your ‘average’ American include? “Skills” as the contemporary mantra goes, is insufficient to this task.
“No, I have not had this experience.”
Prairie, next time try it. I ask for ⅓ of a pound rather than ½ or ¼ to see what happens and all too frequently there is confusion.
“I haven’t even mentioned teachers. “
You have mentioned teachers, but that is not the important issue. The teachers union all too often sets the politics. If you don’t recognize that, that is your problem not mine.
“Helping children succeed”: The worst circumstances are perhaps in the NYC school system yet despite all the negative variables including your favorite, nutrition, we see some of those charter schools equalling or surpassing expensive well known private schools. That demonstrates that the major variable is the school system itself. Moreover, in the past with a lot more poverty and worse work conditions the NYC public schools were able to function at a higher level than they do today. They again points to a degenerating public school platform.
The charter schools have frightened the public school system in NYC because they deprive the teachers union of power and money which they wield over politicians. Parents speak with their feet and 50,000 students more want to enter the charter school system in NYC so that they can have better lives.
Educational success is a system with a boatload of factors going into it. Family is a factor, student health is a factor, school culture is a factor, district organization is a factor, curriculum quality, teacher quality, testing companies, federal and state control (depending on the state), unions, politics, etc.
Educational success is not a system, it’s a desired outcome. The process to produce that desired outcome has common and special cause variation that needs to be identified and eliminated for the process to consistently provide the desired outcome. How many of those factors Prairie Rose listed are necessary to be part of a successful education process? I recall in Sowell’s interview, where the boy was sent home on his first day of Kindergarten for wearing the wrong socks. If I’m following PR correctly, she would insist the school take responsibility for the student’s inability to adhere to the dress code. Perhaps they should have a bin of clothing for the needy students. If he showed up at school without having breakfast, they should provide nutritious meals. If he hasn’t bathed, they should provide hygiene facilities. And so on. Of course all of these added services require resources (funding). These are variations that impact the education process. If the community desires quality education, then they should develop processes outside of the education process to assist struggling parents with whatever is needed to ensure the students entering the classroom meet the necessary requirements to begin the process of education.
“How many of those factors Prairie Rose listed are necessary to be part of a successful education process? ”
Olly, those are the variables Sowell dealt with and Prairie doesn’t seem to understand that her variables existed in the children that succeeded in charter schools.
What were some of the major programs of the left?
Education: In NYC charter schools exceeded the dreams of the left.
Sex Education: When the left forced sex education into the school systems to stop unwanted pregnancy among the youth such levels were on the way down. After the program was firmly established unwanted teenage pregnancy claimed. Charter schools have lower teenage pregnancy rates.
Crime: Crime was going down until the left forced their notions on the public. Crime went up after the left enacted their programs. There is less crime from the charter school children.
Charter schools have done what the left dreamed of doing and made worse. The left is against charter schools. One has to wonder about the left’s concern for underprivileged minorities. The left has a dream and God help anyone who gets in the way of the left’s destruction of advanced civilizations.
Olly, those are the variables Sowell dealt with and Prairie doesn’t seem to understand that her variables existed in the children that succeeded in charter schools.
It would seem that the public school system has been imposed with the challenge of correcting the multitude of variations of the raw material (students), rather than society. Regardless of whether the district is rural or metropolitan, in poverty or wealthy, the school’s sole job is to teach, period. Crime, employment, pregnancy, nutrition, health, etc. are societies responsibilities and ideally, the schools should not be required to include that variation in their education process. I don’t have the data to prove it, but I would bet the worst performing schools are in districts where that variation is required to be dealt with within the school and not in the community.
Olly,
“If I’m following PR correctly, she would insist the school take responsibility for the student’s inability to adhere to the dress code.”
Nope. I’m fine with that requirement. Ticks me off that too often public schools don’t reinforce their own dress code.
“If he showed up at school without having breakfast, they should provide nutritious meals.”
They probably do since they typically use the same food service programs public schools use.
“If the community desires quality education, then they should develop processes outside of the education process to assist struggling parents with whatever is needed to ensure the students entering the classroom meet the necessary requirements to begin the process of education.”
I agree overall. Some places have. The Youth Advocate Program is discussed, for example, by Paul Tough in How Children Succeed. Dr. Tiffany Anderson was successful in improving a struggling district from within to some degree (by using partnerships, donations, and other incentives–it doesn’t sound like it is costing the district much, if anything). The school regained its accreditation. It is intriguing; I’d like to know more: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mKCnNZzhaMQ
“When Anderson took over in 2012, the school district was close to losing accreditation. Jennings had a score of 57 percent on state educational standards. A district loses accreditation if that score goes below 50 percent.
Two years later, that score was up to 78 percent, and in the past year rose again to 81 percent, Anderson says. She points to a 92 percent four-year graduation rate, and a 100 percent college and career-placement rate.
Anderson is quick to give credit to the entire community for the improvement. “No one person can do this,” she says. “The staff, the teachers, the board … have worked together collectively to demonstrate that our kids can exceed at very high levels.””
https://www.npr.org/2016/01/03/461205086/the-superintendent-who-turned-around-a-school-district
I am inclined to disagree with some of her ideas (especially “equity training” and “dismantling racism”–how about just treating the kids like people capable of success and raising expectations–low expectations by others affects white kids in poverty, too). This sounds reasonable, though: “training to deal with trauma and how to defuse tense situations”.
Olly, I know that this will not please Prairie, but I believe the teachers union is responsible for destroying a lot of children’s lives. The unions are not looking after the children. They are looking after the teachers well being at the expense of students and they are looking after those that run the unions.
You’re absolutely correct. It’s ridiculous to defend the unions because teachers in an isolated community are not negatively influenced by the union hierarchy. The unions as a whole have been a disaster for the public education system.
Olly,
I will defend them insofar that I do not think they are the main problem. While public unions can most certainly be problematic, I do not think it is right to lay all the blame at their feet when it is unwarranted.
Paul Tough’s Helping Children Succeed: What Works and Why, as well as his How Children Succeed, give a decent overview of many of the issues surrounding the educational struggles of disadvantaged kids (and things to consider to best address said problems). There are thornier issues that people just want to ignore because they aren’t something that can just have money thrown at them or have legislatures address.
“While public unions can most certainly be problematic,”
What do you mean can be??? They are, at least in larger cities where education is a problem. We can diddle around doing very little or we can work to end the problem.
one of the strange sequences of history, maybe just a correlation but not a causation, or perhaps a cause, I am not sure:
when public sector unions were run by guys with ties to mobsters, they were politically LESS HARMFUL than they are now
RICO prosecutions that drummed the crooks out of the top union admin positions, strangely seems to have made them, WORSE
maybe this is just a phenomenon in the midwest in and nearby Chicago, but seems like a real thing to me
it may have something to do with the utter and dismal state of our universities, who breed the worst ideas in the minds of up and coming “educators”
Saloth Sar
S. Meyer,
I do not easily fit into a bucket. I do think there are plenty of problems with teacher’s unions, especially in larger, apparently more corrupt cities. However, I do not think problems in children’s educational lives can be solely pinned on them.
A school is a system, much like the human body is a system. With chronic problems in human health, it isn’t 1 variable or typically even just 2 that are out of whack. Typically, it is quite multi-faceted–poor HCl production, poor digestion, stress, gut dysbiosis, micronutrient deficiencies, H. pylori or some other infection, SNPs, lousy diet, lousy sleep, etc that present with different sets of symptoms because of environmental and genetic differences and probably things we haven’t figured out yet.
Schools aren’t much different–they are a system and there are a bunch of factors, including personal struggles of the students, that will affect the apparent success of a given school.
That system has processes. Students are the raw material at the input and educated students are the output. All measurable. Don’t blame student problems for systemic failures of schools. Do a root cause analysis and you will likely discover massive incompetency from the administrative level upward. Throw in the union administrators, lobbyists and government control and you have recipe for failure.
Olly,
“Don’t blame student problems for systemic failures of schools.”
You can’t throw student problems out of the equation, though. If the raw material is badly fed or stressed out, the effectiveness of said education is going to be wanting. Poor parents, in general, do not speak in as complex sentences or use a broad vocabulary with their kids; this leaves their kids with a gap before they even start preschool. Add to that all the other attendant problems associated with poverty.
Like my example of the horribly-ranked charter school with great curriculum, some similar elements are very likely at play in public schools. I do not dispute that incompetence is likely at play in many struggling districts (and charters). *All* of these things have to be taken into consideration and adequately addressed.
There should be a tree like this for educational dysfunction (with the attendant multi-faceted treatment):
https://londonclinicofnutrition.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2018/12/ifm_tree_cc_brfinal_v2.jpg
However, “Do a root cause analysis and you will likely discover massive incompetency from the administrative level upward. Throw in the union administrators, lobbyists and government control and you have recipe for failure.” is not necessarily so. Stuyvesant is certainly not failing. Several of the districts in my area are doing quite well–but they have competent administrators, a well-thought out K-12 curriculum, and a well-heeled population whose families probably have a fairly decent diet, who have read to them and have spoken to them in complex sentences since they were little and encourage educational excellence and help make sure their kids are supervised and learn studying discipline.
Addressing all those things are easy, in some ways. Those can all be broken-down or replaced. It is far harder to build people up, and those raw materials are in desperate need of building up. Paul Tough (and others) talks about some of the effective building-up strategies and concepts in his book Helping Children Succeed.
There should be a tree like this for educational dysfunction (with the attendant multi-faceted treatment):
Using your chart, the proper comparison would not be educational, but rather student dysfunction. The assumption in your chart is that competent medical professionals are using a system to diagnose patients to determine treatments. In the same way, the assumption would be that competent educators should “diagnose” the students to determine the education path best suited for them.
In the medical model, not all patients are treated in the same facility. Hell, not all patients even require treatment at a facility. They certainly don’t put infectious disease patients in with cardio patients. There are specialists for each condition and oftentimes, those specialists have their own facility just for patients that do not require admission to a hospital.
If the goal is to graduate students meeting measurable education standards, then they need to eliminate as much student variation as possible within classrooms. So if we consider students and education in the same way, the vast majority of students will not require special treatment. Those that do should not be sitting in the same classrooms as those that don’t. They should be with specialists capable of providing the education services needed. Maybe that’s on campus, perhaps on a different campus.
Now this process only addresses the variation in students. Just like in the medical field, schools, faculty, administration all need to be measured and held accountable to specific standards. When a doctor fails to deliver proper care to a patient, a board reviews the case and makes recommendations. However, when an entire hospital or multiple hospitals in a geographic area consistently provide substandard care, odds are that it’s a management problem and not staff. Does the public education (big picture) system conduct business this way? Can poor performing teachers be easily removed? Administrators? How about school boards?
It’s a tough call, but if education is the goal, then “social” initiatives have no place in the schools.
There are many problems that influence the the intellectual growth of a child, some that are uncontrollable by the state. One doesn’t fuss about a dirty window when the tire is flat. Deal with the problem at hand. The state mandates child education and public schools. There is a scope to that mandate and fiddling around outside of that area, instead of dealing with the problem at hand, indicates you are not ready to deal with the problem.
A major problem in our school system today is the teachers union and the inability to pay teachers what they are worth and to fire those that are worthless. The state is unable to manage those problems but schools outside of the public domain can. It is that simple. Don’t make things more difficult than they have to be. Don’t jumble a bunch of other things into the problem. Solve the problem.
Sowell proved the problem was solvable with the use of charter schools. Stop fighting to protect the status quo.
Somehow with far less Lincoln became well educated.
Few students today faced the hardships he overcame, and he was not alone.
Years ago bright American girls in my office were unable to place Washington, DC on a map. One thought it was in California.
Two weeks later I was in a bus terminal in Mexico when a group of Mexican school girls came in. I saw a big map of the US and Mexico on the wall and asked if they could find Washington DC on it. They ran over and put their fingers exactly on it.
There is much horribly wrong with American education and it isn’t lack of money or problems with the students. I suspect that if those clever Mexican girls had gone to American schools they would be as stupid as their American counterparts.
Olly,
“Using your chart, the proper comparison would not be educational, but rather student dysfunction.”
A root causes chart can be used for anything that is a system: schools or kids. People’s health problems cannot be boiled down to one factor; almost always there are multiple issues for chronic diseases. Educational problems cannot be boiled down to one factor, like teacher’s unions, either.
” People’s health problems cannot be boiled down to one factor; almost always there are multiple issues for chronic diseases. Educational problems cannot be boiled down to one factor, like teacher’s unions, either.”
There seldom is only one common factor, but there is one consistent factor, the public school system and teachers union, that very strongly correlates with many of the problems we see. We have had poverty, nutrition problems, crime, etc. yet despite having all those problems the charter schools in NYC provide a much better education than the public school system. In many cases they were the equal to or surpassed schools in better areas or even private schools that are well thought of.
Allan,
I was a certified instructor in the Navy. Of course our process eliminated much of the variation PR insists is part of the education process. Students had to meet minimum requirements to enter the classroom. After I retired, I got a dual degree in Education and Accounting. I learned from the education degree that I wanted no part of the public education system. So much of what would be required of teachers to deal with that was not actually part of the education process, was not something I would have the patience for.
Olly,
“Now this process only addresses the variation in students. Just like in the medical field, schools, faculty, administration all need to be measured and held accountable to specific standards.”
Does the criteria take into consideration patient adherence to physicians’ prescriptions and orders? Have the physicians been trained to find root causes of dysfunction or have they been trained to treat symptoms?
What about patient (student)? Should they be held accountable to specific standards? There are arguments regarding freedom that would say no. I tend to agree on that end, to an extent. That said, it leaves a gaping hole in the analysis of the system to ignore the responsibility of the patient (student).
“Does the criteria take into consideration patient adherence to physicians’ prescriptions and orders? ”
Prairie, you are missing the point. The physician offers the patient the opportunity for better health. The schools offer the student the opportunity to learn.
Good doctors can obtain greater adherence, just like good teachers can gain greater adherence. There are no guarantees anyone uses the opportunities offered to make their lives better.
S. Meyer,
“The state mandates child education and public schools. There is a scope to that mandate and fiddling around outside of that area, instead of dealing with the problem at hand, indicates you are not ready to deal with the problem.”
The research from New Orleans indicated that high-achieving students gravitated towards high achieving schools, while low-achieving students gravitated towards low-achieving schools. There is an element of socioeconomic status related to this, too:
“However, research has found that students who choose to move to a higher quality school are often higher-achieving, less likely to live in poverty, and more likely to be White (Hanushek, Kain, and Rivkin 2004; Cullen, Jacob, and Levitt 2005; Schwartz, Stiefel, and Chalico 2009; Xu, Hannaway, and D’Souza 2009).” School Choice, Student Mobility and School Quality:
Evidence from post-Katrina New Orleans. Richard Welsh.
“About one in three students qualified as low-income last year, and 3 percent were English language learners. But [Success Academy Upper West’s] share of low-income students should be closer to 50 percent and its English learner population closer to 7 percent, according to state calculations devised to nudge charter schools to serve more high-need students….The latest data show that the city’s charter schools lag significantly behind district schools in serving English language learners and slightly behind when it comes to students with disabilities. And while the vast majority of charter school students are eligible for free or reduced-price lunch, 80 percent of charter schools have fewer poor students than their district average, according to a 2012 analysis by the New York City Charter Center….Community Roots, for example, served fewer than half as many low-income students (40 percent) as its target (86 percent)”
https://ny.chalkbeat.org/2015/10/19/21095001/charter-school-demographics-coming-under-fresh-scrutiny
Looks to me like the charter schools are shaking out into more or less the same bell curve as public schools. NYC probably looks about the same when you look at all the charter schools–from best to worst, selective or not, high standards or not. If they’re not, then perhaps the public schools are serving an inordinately high percentage of low-income kids (so, are the charters skimming higher-income kids in lousy districts and/or the most highly-motivated kids?). And, it still looks like the disadvantaged kids are still attending less high-achieving schools. The platforms are different but the same problem of getting disadvantaged kids effectively educated remains. Perhaps the kids and their family dynamics are worth considering as part of the equation.
“Looks to me like the charter schools are shaking out into more or less the same bell curve as public schools. NYC probably looks about the same “
Prairie, you are making an argument about a presumptive normal distribution along a bell curve. Are you saying this should not occur?
However, If you take the studied public schools and charter schools and mix them together you will also find a bell curve but the public schools would mostly be on the lower half and the charter schools mostly on the upper half.
Sounds like you do not understand what you are reading.
“are the charters skimming higher-income kids in lousy districts and/or the most highly-motivated kids?)”
Again, if you read the NYC material without bias you would have known that isn’t true at all. All applicants were selected at random and the study went to great pains to insure that the comparisons had equal demographics and income levels. The same goes for what schools the students attend.
In the NYC study “the kids and their family dynamics “ were randomly placed along with the fact that direct comparisons could be made with those families that wanted charter schools but lost in the lottery.
Virtually every negative argument you make was covered in the video and book. You are trying very hard to provide things the study failed to consider when the study design was specifically made to cover those considerations in advance.
Not good.
S. Meyer,
“The physician offers the patient the opportunity for better health. The schools offer the student the opportunity to learn.”
Yes. But, sadly, some people don’t actually want better health or want to learn. They say they do, but their actions don’t reflect a true yearning. Why? What’s going on psychologically or spiritually with these folks?
For the kids dealing with fouled up executive function and other problems that are going to royally foul with even learning in a highly-structured and accountability and responsibility-focused charter (as the New Orleans and North Carolina studies show, there are low-achieving charters), what can be done?
“Yes. But, sadly, some people don’t actually want better health or want to learn.”
Isn’t that essentially what I said:
“Good doctors can obtain greater adherence, just like good teachers can gain greater adherence. There are no guarantees anyone uses the opportunities offered to make their lives better.”
There is no reason that New Orleans can’t make their schools better. Though I don’t know, it appears to me that perhaps New Orleans did a replacement of public schools with charter schools maintaining the same structure as existed in the public schools.
I do not know for sure but I think the first charter schools in NYC started independently from the public schools where there was minimal interference as long as the charter schools functioned well on the standardized tests. Then perhaps other schools followed that model Since you have researched New Orleans schools perhaps you can more easily describe how charter schools developed in N.O.
S. Meyer,
“Prairie, you are making an argument about a presumptive normal distribution along a bell curve. Are you saying this should not occur?”
Of course not. I am not surprised by a normal distribution. Public schools also have a normal distribution. Since both have a normal distribution, then what’s the difference? Charters are allowing highly-motivated kids/families to be freed from their low-performing districts, to seek and try to enter better schools. That’s great! However, even if all the schools are charters (as in the case of New Orleans), there is still a normal distribution along a bell curve. The research indicated that high-achieving kids switched to high-achieving schools and low-achieving kids switched to low-achieving schools. Why is that? Are the low achieving kids seeking out badly managed schools? I doubt it. Something else is going on that even charter schools are struggling to address.
“However, If you take the studied public schools and charter schools and mix them together you will also find a bell curve but the public schools would mostly be on the lower half and the charter schools mostly on the upper half.”
That’s not a particularly helpful debate since New Orleans is still having a major problem in education. Charters seemed to help there (motivated kids stuck in struggling schools are now freed to move to high-achieving schools), but the effectively failing school rate is still at essentially 40%. Addressing that is really important.
There’s a normal distribution for both. Unsuccessful charter schools fail. Why do they fail? Is it just because of poor management, fraud, lousy teachers, or a lousy curriculum? Maybe, though, many are shut down because they cannot get students’ scores up to acceptable levels. Why? Why are the kids struggling? That charter school my friend is in has pretty good organization and the curriculum looks fine–why is it badly ranked despite all the positives she sees?
“Sounds like you do not understand what you are reading.”
I’m understanding it just fine.
“are the charters skimming higher-income kids in lousy districts and/or the most highly-motivated kids?)”
“Again, if you read the NYC material without bias you would have known that isn’t true at all. All applicants were selected at random and the study went to great pains to insure that the comparisons had equal demographics and income levels. The same goes for what schools the students attend.”
I’ve already answered this. The very fact that students/families even bothered to put their names into the lottery put them in a more highly-motivated category. Then, the parents who stuck with the charter (rather than quit and withdrew their student because they weren’t 100% on board) puts them into an even more highly-motivated category. The public schools have the kids whose families aren’t even motivated to put their names into the lottery at all. The New Orleans study found the charters diverging into high-achieving and low-achieving based on self-selection.
“In the NYC study “the kids and their family dynamics “ were randomly placed along with the fact that direct comparisons could be made with those families that wanted charter schools but lost in the lottery.”
I am glad that many charters are holding families accountable. When people are accountable and responsible, it goes a long way in any endeavor. That trait is not unique to charters, though.
” Since both have a normal distribution, then what’s the difference?”
Both may be normal distribution along the curve but in NYC, the only study under discussion, the charter schools would have a higher basis of proficiency throughout the curve. This was more than adequately explained in the video.
“Charters are allowing highly-motivated kids/families to be freed from their low-performing districts, to seek and try to enter better schools. “
You keep repeating the same fallacies proven in the NYC study to have only minimal effects. Students of highly motivated families that did not enter the charter schools were compared with the rest.
New Orleans schools had better performance over all after they changed to charter schools. Not good enough but better. We do not know the functioning of charter schools in New Orleans. We do know that for what happened in the NYC schools. Therefore your continual arguments based on faulty information is ridiculous. Stick with the NYC school system that has the data.
“Something else is going on that even charter schools are struggling to address.”
Instead of spinning your wheels look at what NYC is doing and see what those other school systems are doing differently.
“That’s not a particularly helpful debate since New Orleans is still having a major problem in education. “
That might be so, but you seem to like to look at failure instead of success and mimic failure instead of success. Do you know where that leads to? FAILURE.
“That charter school my friend is in has pretty good organization and the curriculum looks fine–why is it badly ranked despite all the positives she sees?”
Because your friend and you dwell on superficialities and don’t bother to look at success and see why one system is functioning better than another.
That is your fault and your friend’s fault. I can almost guarantee you the non-superficial forces at work are very much different between New Orleans and NYC. The politicians are trying to push NYC charter schools to be more like New Orleans which may benefit politicians, teachers unions and some others but it doesn’t benefit the children.
““Sounds like you do not understand what you are reading.”
“I’m understanding it just fine.””
That is not true based on what you have said above. (Take note that many of the questions you have been asked were asked by Peter Robinson and answered by Sowell.)
“I’ve already answered this. The very fact that students/families even bothered to put their names into the lottery put them in a more highly-motivated category.”
You lack understanding of how to use numbers. They took the motivated families and compared those kids that got into the charter schools and those that didn’t. Charter school students did much better.
“The New Orleans study found the charters diverging into high-achieving and low-achieving based on self-selection.”
You keep comparing apples to oranges and continually come out with the same mess.
“When people are accountable and responsible, it goes a long way in any endeavor. That trait is not unique to charters, though.”
If NYC doesn’t destroy charter schools and lets them increase their numbers then perhaps the public schools will learn to make their students accountable and responsible. They don’t. And likely that is one of the problems in New Orleans.
S. Meyer,
Prairie Rose: ““Yes. But, sadly, some people don’t actually want better health or want to learn.””
S. Meyer:”Isn’t that essentially what I said:
“Good doctors can obtain greater adherence, just like good teachers can gain greater adherence. There are no guarantees anyone uses the opportunities offered to make their lives better.”
Even good doctors cannot get 100% adherence, which is what schools were essentially expected to do with NCLB.
I agree ‘that there are no guarantees anyone uses the opportunities offered to make their lives better.’ But, it is that percentage that everyone is upset about. Is it as much of an existential problem as obesity? Perhaps.
“There is no reason that New Orleans can’t make their schools better. Though I don’t know, it appears to me that perhaps New Orleans did a replacement of public schools with charter schools maintaining the same structure as existed in the public schools.”
They did not maintain the same structure–the charter schools are private businesses doing their own thing. Some are failing on account of the managers/owners, but then there’s that problem of the kids–the low-achieving kids are switching to low-achieving schools (’cause they couldn’t handle the higher-achieving schools). The normal distribution is reappearing under charter schools, but now taxpayers don’t have great representation and they’ve lost an element of self-governance (though, to be fair, it’s not like they were doing a great job of self-governing with schools before Katrina with a 70% public school failure rate).
What needs to change (if anything can be changed) to help kids be more educationally successful? Charters are just a platform–a private business using public funds platform. They seem to help the motivated families in highly-disadvantaged areas. However, even the charter schools are struggling with problems unrelated to the school itself.
Even Thomas Sowell in his interview with Peter Robinson noted that there are still educational gaps. The charters helped close it some. He even noted that, as a whole, charters do not have better results than traditional public schools. (~4:55 and ~5:45) I do not think it is misleading, though, as Sowell thought. It reflects a normal distribution.
”Isn’t that essentially what I said”
No.
Go back and read from Olly’s response on.
My first response in the thread was as follows:
“Prairie, you are missing the point. The physician offers the patient the opportunity for better health. The schools offer the student the opportunity to learn.”
Take note of the word, “opportunity”. At the time you were blaming the physician and his training. If that training were increased you would still be blaming the physician. That is a tactic of the left. Any failure has to be blamed on other people instead of the person that doesn’t take the opportunity. A criminal steals and your present type of thinking immediately blames society and doesn’t want to hold the criminal responsible.
I don’t know how much clearer one can get in demonstrating that you frequently have the vision of the left.
Along with Sowell’s book on charter schools you might also want to read his book “The Vision Of The Anointed”. Those books will leave you and your friend much better informed and much more able to appear before the school system and help correct the New Orleans school system. Isn’t that the objective, or is the objective to blame society for bad policy made by politicians and self interested people? 🙂
“Even Thomas Sowell in his interview with Peter Robinson noted that there are still educational gaps. The charters helped close it some. He even noted that, as a whole, charters do not have better results than traditional public schools. (~4:55 and ~5:45) “
You need to listen to his explanation again since he carefully explained what you are missing. There is a text available that might help in understanding why what you think is wrong. Once again you are comparing apples to oranges. A closed mind has difficulty hearing those things that go contrary to their vision
Thomas Sowell: Yes. Many of the people who are defending the traditional public schools or attacking the charter school say, “The charter school don’t get any better results as a whole than public or public schools at all.” It’s one of the many statements that is technically true and gross misleading at the same time. White students and Hispanic students constitute a majority of all the students in traditional public schools. Black students, and Hispanic students are majority in the charter school. Did I say why White and Asian students?
Peter Robinson: Yeah. You said White and Asian…in public schools white and Asian.
Thomas Sowell: Charter schools black and Hispanic. For generations white and Asian students have been scoring higher on tests than black and Hispanic students. So to say that they’re only equal now is to say that this gap that people have been agonizing over for years has now been closed. Is this statement, what is relevant? Both statements are true. One is true and misleading. The other is true and has some effect to it.
“They did not maintain the same structure–the charter schools are private businesses doing their own thing.”
Such an inability to question what you think and your biases is taking you down the path to nowhere.
Right now, the charter schools in NYC are in jeopardy of getting worse due to politicians and the self interested persons with power. They could end up like New Orleans charter schools and you will continue to speak as you do not recognizing the differences between the system in New Orleans and that of NYC. You keep blaming and focusing on the wrong entities and things. You repeat yourself over and over again without looking at the data and seeing that the comparison you want has already satisfactorily been made.
“Charters are just a platform–a private business using public funds platform. “
That is your assumption which is only partly correct. You wish to blame big business. Blame the teachers unions, that is big business. Blame the political community and their financial backers. That is big business. Blame whomever you want. That is your business but it is wrong.
Focus on NYC and focus on what Sowell said. Focus on the numbers and stop going around in circles.
Olly, Prairie is a likable, decent and serious person. I think she keeps missing certain things that are part of the fundamental divide between the left and the right centrists. I figure no one including you is continuing to read what we are writing, but I would like you to review this singular post above if you would. Maybe you have something to add no matter who it may contradict.
Meyer,
At this point, it’s not clear to me what the issue is anymore. What was PR’s original concern about charter schools? Has anything changed? If not, then my guess is it’s not going to change because you provided more facts and evidence. I sense her objections are more philosophical and by that I mean she has a worldview of public education, rights and community different from myself or you.
Thank you Olly. “she has a worldview of public education, rights” is a good thought.
What I don’t understand is the statistics in NYC so strongly demonstrate how much black and latino students are benefited that all except the self interested would be pushing NYC for more charter schools. I would expect the same from other cities where similar problems exist and would think they would be looking into how they could mimic NYC success.
What I don’t understand is…
I don’t understand why anyone would argue against natural rights. To me, that’s like arguing against the rights of slaves and for the slaveholders. That’s why I suggested PR just has a different worldview. If you don’t share that worldview, then things won’t make sense.
S. Meyer,
I am NOT going around in circles.
“Any failure has to be blamed on other people instead of the person that doesn’t take the opportunity. ”
Teachers are blamed, teachers unions are blamed, public school administration is blamed–but not the families or the kids for not taking the opportunity. Schools reflect the predominant culture of the communities they are in. If families care and pay attention and make sure to hold their kids (and schools) accountable and encourage educational excellence, that’s what the school will produce. If not, that’s what you’ll get, too.
“That might be so, but you seem to like to look at failure instead of success and mimic failure instead of success. Do you know where that leads to? FAILURE.”
I have not in any way suggested anyone mimic failure. Regarding looking at failure, though, you have to see what doesn’t work in order to fix it. You also have to look at success. BOTH are necessary to get an accurate picture. Charter schools, especially in areas that are not doing so well with any kind of self-governance, may be helpful, to a degree. They are not a panacea either. Especially in a constitutional republic, people should be aiming for self-governance, and public schooling of a community’s children is one way people in a community self-govern. Why should people be beholden to a business to provide education? They have no control over it and how it spends taxpayer money–other than to leave. That is not good and makes the taxpayer into a serf since it isn’t just families of the kids attending the charter that are paying the taxes. People choosing to attend charter schools were not elected to make decisions about how taxpayer money gets spent.
I’m also not confident that students’ First Amendment rights are protected in a charter school, despite charter schools using taxpayer money. Does Tinker vs Des Moines have standing in a charter?
“That charter school my friend is in has pretty good organization and the curriculum looks fine–why is it badly ranked despite all the positives she sees?”
Because your friend and you dwell on superficialities and don’t bother to look at success and see why one system is functioning better than another.”
That is not at all the case. I am most certainly looking at success and it is not the platform; it is the implementation. It is also those who are participating–the students and families, not just the teachers, administrators, and school board members.
I would like struggling public schools to take a good, hard look at themselves and ask themselves if they are *really* implementing best practices–including the best curriculum, high expectations, and inculcating a culture of excellence, as well as finding ways to best reach the kids in the hardest circumstances (not just poverty, but abuse, neglect, and all the other chaos that tracks alongside). Take what is best from each system and use the best to improve your own circumstances.
Superficialities? What superficialities? That despite an excellent curriculum, excellent materials, strong organization, and effective communication, a large chunk of the student body is still struggling in the charter school? That’s part of the struggles at public schools, too–the kids and their families. The school is doing its best to help them, too. The problems these disadvantaged kids are facing are not superficialities! The things they are dealing with are hammering at the core of their Being. Many of the students started at the charter school far below grade level–and it isn’t just because whatever public school they were in was rotten. Their parents themselves do not have a great vocabulary or reading skills; they might not even speak English as their native tongue. My friend really likes this school and intends to keep her child in it–despite the ranking. We can see some of the reasons one system is functioning better than the other and we intend to try to help the public school do better.
“They took the motivated families and compared those kids that got into the charter schools and those that didn’t. Charter school students did much better.”
Because charter schools are doing a better job of holding kids and families accountable than the low-performing public schools are. They may also have a better curriculum and higher expectations, and, if they worth their salt, they are also inculcating a culture of excellence (and it’s reinforced by the families who attended who obviously want excellence for their kids). Low-performing public schools are struggling to embed a culture of excellence (a culture of excellence is not just driven by the schools, the families drive this attitude, too). That’s not good and its perhaps a lesson they could learn from charters (though, such accountability could be considered an affront to liberty).
“The politicians are trying to push NYC charter schools to be more like New Orleans which may benefit politicians, teachers unions and some others but it doesn’t benefit the children.”
This doesn’t make sense. New Orleans is essentially ALL charter schools. I doubt NYC politicians are trying to get all charter schools in NYC; you said yourself that they are trying to do the opposite. In New Orleans all the charters are all competing with one another; even with all that competition there are still kids struggling at the bottom.
“The New Orleans study found the charters diverging into high-achieving and low-achieving based on self-selection.”
“You keep comparing apples to oranges and continually come out with the same mess.”
I am not comparing apples to oranges. I am comparing charter schools in different cities. They are all private businesses using public funds to educate kids. If NYC switched to all charter schools, they would run into this same issue.
“I am NOT going around in circles.”
I hate to disagree with you but I have seen you hit the same points over and over again. I don’t mean that harshly, the subject matter is a trigger point for many.
“Schools reflect the predominant culture of the communities they are in.”
That is probably true, but despite the culture the charter schools succeeded well beyond my imagination.
“I have not in any way suggested anyone mimic failure.”
Your primary reference was to New Orleans, the failure, instead of NYC, the success.
“people should be aiming for self-governance, and public schooling of a community’s children is one way people in a community self-govern.”
This community that does so much better with charter schools has no political power so this community has no self-governance. However, charter schools provide this community with a vote. They can vote with their feet and they are. 50,000 students lost the lottery due to space and had that space been permitted they would have voted as well and been in charter schools.
Think of those kids and their lives that are being sacrificed by the politicians and the teachers union.
“Why should people be beholden to a business to provide education?”
Because it is closer to your desire, self governance. This community has absolutely no control over the public schools. They are taxpayers as well and it is their children that will end up dead or in jail.
” Does Tinker vs Des Moines have standing in a charter?”
Tinker was later claimed in other cases where the Supreme Court went the other way. What you are looking for is the Supreme Court to decide how to maintain order in the classroom. That is not what the Supreme Court is for. The classroom is for education and the following SC decisions loosened Tinker and perhaps for the benefit of our children it should be loosened further as long as political or other forms of discrimination is not occurring.
Do you really want the Supreme Court to be responsible for running our schools rather than the local authorities? That is not what you said you stand for. Why don’t you permit children to drink alcohol or even vote? Because they are children and are supposed to do what the adults say.
“I would like struggling public schools to take a good, hard look at themselves and ask themselves if they are *really* implementing best practices”
That is what you want but that is what you are arguing against.
Charter schools force NYC school systems to do exactly what you want. They don’t want to do that so they are trying to destroy the charter system. If NYC didn’t put a cap on the number of charter students 50,000 more would be in charter schools and maybe more than that. That would cause NYC to lose about $1Billion and would cost them jobs. It is everything about everything, except the student.
“That is not at all the case. I am most certainly looking at success“ “Superficialities? What superficialities? ”
I see it differently and maybe New Orleans sees it differently than me, but New Orleans is not successful. I look at the success. You are looking at a lot of things that don’t lead to success and believing the orderliness of students should be left to the SC (Tinker). Tinker (absent bias in the classroom) is looking for failure and I believe even some on the Supreme Court realized that later.
Do you really want the dumbest and biggest mouth in the class to control the dialogue?
“If they worth their salt, they are also inculcating a culture of excellence “
They are graduating kids that can read and aren’t illiterate. When you are dealing with children who otherwise will graduate illiterate and without the ability to balance a checkbook, you should start rethinking what you believe and stop your grandiose ideas.
“In New Orleans all the charters”
Again you are looking at only what you know and leaving out the unknown that is creating a better environment in NYC than New Orleans. [read Bastiat, the known and the Unknown] You are concentrating on failure.
“I am not comparing apples to oranges. I am comparing charter schools in different cities. “
That is exactly what you are doing comparing apples to oranges.
” If NYC switched to all charter schools, they would run into this same issue.”
I don’t advocate removing freedom of choice. I advocate that charter schools be permitted to thrive and public schools as well. I think the competition does both some good.
However, NYC might function better than it does now with charter schools alone. I don’t know and can’t predict, but the problem you speak of is not charter schools. It is the government exerting the wrong pressures and incentives on charter schools. You seem to miss the big picture. If government knew how to run the schools then the schools would be at least as good as the charter schools.
S. Meyer,
“A criminal steals and your present type of thinking immediately blames society and doesn’t want to hold the criminal responsible.
I don’t know how much clearer one can get in demonstrating that you frequently have the vision of the left.”
You misunderstand me. I do think people should be held accountable.
Disagreeing with the taxation without representation issue surrounding charter schools is not a ‘vision of the left.
Having concerns about charter schools diminishing self-governance is not a vision of the left.
Having concerns about whether or not kids can speak freely in charter schools because their rights do not stop at the schoolhouse door due to the recognition of such in Tinker vs Des Moines is not a vision of the left.
“A closed mind has difficulty hearing those things that go contrary to their vision”
Indeed.
“I don’t understand why anyone would argue against natural rights. To me, that’s like arguing against the rights of slaves and for the slaveholders. That’s why I suggested PR just has a different worldview.”
I am NOT arguing against natural rights. I have repeatedly said that charter schools may have a place in dysfunctional areas. I do not think they should take the place of all public schools. In some ways, they go against natural rights, as I have indicated above. Bastiat praised the system of the United States–which had local control of schools. Bastiat was arguing against French Federal control of education (which, considering the government collapsed like a year or two after his death, was a reasonable concern). The Founders walked a balanced path at the intersection of the individual and the community, the individual and government. This has eroded as the Federal Executive branch has gained power. Adam Smith and Thomas Jefferson both supported some degree of public support for education.
Adam Smith noted:
“The education of the common people requires, perhaps, in a civilized and commercial society, the attention of the public more than that of people of some rank and fortune…[The common people] have little time to spare for education. Their parents can scarce afford to maintain them even in infancy….The public can facilitate this acquisition by establishing in every parish or district a little school, where children may be taught for a reward so moderate, that even a common labourer may afford it…Though the state was to derive no advantage from the instruction of the inferior ranks of people, it would still deserve its attention that they should not be altogether uninstructed. The state, however, derives no inconsiderable advantage from their instruction. The more they are instructed, the less liable they are to the delusions of enthusiasm and superstition, which among ignorant nations, frequently occasion the most dreadful disorders. An instructed and intelligent people besides, are always more decent and orderly than an ignorant and stupid one. They feel themselves, each individually more respectable, and more likely to obtain the respect of their lawful superiors, and they are more disposed to respect those superiors. They are more disposed to examine, and more capable of seeing through, the interested complaint of faction and sedition, and they are, upon that account, less apt to be misled into any wanton or unnecessary opposition to the measures of government.” (842-6)
“I do think people should be held accountable.”
Good. Children have to be accountable along with their parents. Children do not have the same rights as adults. Tinker and other ideas that remove focus from the classroom on teaching the three R’s should be removed from our direct focus. Criminal behavior likely starts when the criminal is in early childhood. Teach our children to be orderly and respectful of others which means let everyone learn.
“Disagreeing with the taxation without representation issue surrounding charter schools is not a ‘vision of the left.”
It is when you deny parental rights and say society should make the decisions for the parents. What you are actually saying is you love democracy where 51% can enslave the other 49%. Take note charter schools permit the parents to vote with their feet but you diminish that ability by taking away all power from those parents and let the other 51+% enslave them to the ideas of the 51.
“because their rights do not stop at the schoolhouse door due to the recognition of such in Tinker vs Des Moines is not a vision of the left.”
Whether it be from the left or the right, some rights of children are abridged and should be at the classroom door. [Again do you really want the SC to determine what constitutes order in the classroom. Answer that question when you mention Tinker.]
” I do not think they should take the place of all public schools. “
This repetitive argument of yours is a red herring. No one is saying that all public schools should be replaced with charter schools. You are using this argument to stay away from the important issues that you are having trouble dealing with.
“Bastiat praised the system of the United States–which had local control of schools. “
But he wasn’t advocating for the schools to be run so that disorder prevailed interfering with the teaching process. I doubt he would argue against the voluntary use of charter schools rather than the public schools that exist today.
” This has eroded as the Federal Executive branch has gained power.”
You either like it or not. The executive branch of NYS and NYC is attempting to control the way education is managed on the individual parent’s choice when they choose a charter school so that their children can meet and exceed the graduation requirements set by the state and city.
You quote Adam Smith saying, “The public can facilitate this acquisition…” Smith was talking about facilitating education, not destroying it. He too would likely strongly support charter schools in a bipolar choice.
The issues are employment opportunities, a reconciliation between mother and father, progressive prices, and social dysfunction, notably in the community and at home. Then there is the example of Atlanta, Georgia leaving every child behind. Redistributive change is a germ for progressive corruption. That said, diversity of individuals, minority of one.
I didn’t read this post today because I don’t want to feel any sorrier for Turley than I already do. Turley, who should have written about Trump discussing imposition of martial law and seizure of voting equipment, instead decides to use his platform to criticize a mayor, who has no power to enact any of the things of which Turley complains. Turley will never criticize Fox’s encouragement of Trump’s delusion that he won the 2020 election by a landslide, the dozens of lawsuits that keep getting filed and rejected for lack of evidence, or the gross mishandling of the pandemic. Instead, he’s trying to shore up Fox. See, Turley, we understand what’s going on. Trump is pissed at Fox because some of its pundits actually acknowledged Biden’s victory and have suggested that Trump move on. So, he’s courting ONE, NewsMax and other unhinged right-wing groups to appeal to his disciples, which will cost Fox advertising dollars as they lose viewers.
Dimbo, it wasn’t Trump. It was General Flynn! But then fact checking is just beyond you simple abilities. And that is the reason Turley hasn’t commented on your TDS statement. Truley has indeed criticized Trumps challenges to the outcome of the election.
delmaracer: there were meetings at the White House on Monday at which Trump and others kicked around the idea of imposing martial law. I’m not surprised that Fox, OAN or NewsMax, of which you are a disciple, didn’t cover it. True, Flynn also publicly supported it, but so did Trump. Really, given what’s going on today, who cares about some theory of Bill DiBlasio? The only reason Turley ignores the martial law and seizure of voting machine stories, which could benefit from the input of a law professor, is to help his employer, Fox news.
I guess you would need martial law to secure that evidence since the cowardly courts refuse to look
Of course that’s no way to conduct, “discovery” so the idea was scrapped
Martial law would be a good tool if it lead to the expropriation of billionaires across the board and a sufficient reform of our corrupt system.
One doubts that any such thing is possible at this time. And yet. We are in a strange year are we not? Unexpected events may yet unfold
Saloth Sar
You keep listening to the lies on Fox, and you keep believing. The Courts, all of them, have asked for evidence. There isn’t any. Trump has demanded injunctions–meaning court orders immediately commanding states to throw out ballots–all with no evidence of major fraud that could have impacted the results. There were glitches. There always are, but none of them was enough to justify throwing out all of a state’s ballots. That’s why dozens of courts, including the SCOTUS, keep dismissing the lawsuits.
I remain amazed at the fervor of Trump disciples and that facts simply don’t faze them. This was the most closely monitored election in US history. In every state, IDs were checked, by both Republican and Democrat representatives, voting was conducted properly, ballots were secured, and were handled in the presence of both Republican and Democratic representatives at all times. The ballots and machines were secured, too. Fox lied about Dominion software being used or that it could be used to change votes, and was forced to retract its lies. Nevertheless, the disciples keep believing.
Trump has been the least-popular POTUS in the history of presidential polling–never obtaining even 50% approval. He lost the popular vote in 2016. He grossly mishandled the pandemic, and his incompetence has brought us to the point of a near-depression. The trade deficit is a a record all time high. And yet, the disciples believe that it’s not possible that Americans voted this clown out of office. The only explanation must be fraud–Pastors Hannity and Tucker reaffirm this belief constantly.
You’re a fool. I have said truly what i watch on fox. never on tv and only tucker on the internet. i have no clue what FOX your hated stations says any more than I do CNN. TV is krap.
It is a tool of propaganda for its billionaire ownership. Tucker is the only one on TV far as I have heard who ever dares to skewer billionaires so that’s why I watch him at times
You need to wake up out of your little Natasha bubble and get with reality. The reality is thinking people do not care too much about “Fox” nor CNN. WHo cares, only those who are already conditioned to keep on slurping up billionaire propaganda., And it can be Fox’s version or CNN’s but in the end it matters little. What must be done is entirely outside their range.
Saloth Sar
We can easily put the Malcolm X statement in a nut shell. Don’t be a sucker. De Blasio knows that there are still so many suckers to be had. He takes his clue from Lyndon Johnson. We’ll have these ——s voting for us forever. It’s all about the power Billy.
Anon? The billionaires of the WWII era were the Jews. Please give us someone to hate. Every one of your posts begins with one subject but eventually turns to the terrible billionaires. Seems to coming close to the boarder of phobia.
Thinkthrough, name ‘one’ American Jewish billionaire of the 1940’s.
It would be fair to say that the Rothschilds in previous centuries were the equivalent of billionaires, and they were Jewish
But to confuse their Jewishness with their plutocratic control, would be an intellectual error.
Trotsky, whom I do not like, elaborated on the phenomenon of “antisemitism” as a function of the workers’ anger at exploitation by petty Jewish moneylenders and peddlers and the like. he was not too far off the mark. And he was jewish too. As was Karl Marx who had a few things to say about this subject too.
I am not against criticizing any group where it’s merited. I thought Jews were a problem as a group in the past. I have been called an ant eye semite before. Well I dont thin so, but perhaps I did make some errors of fact and analysis in respect of that question.
Deeper research into political and economic systems around the world and in history has lead me to the conclusion that their Jewishness is perhaps related to their cleverness and industry in a cultural way, but it is not inherently a thing that can be isolated as a factor apart from financial interests and power. ergo, the relationships of the private financial interests are what concerns me now.
That is why I talk about billionaires. I want to identify who are our enemies and those who abuse us as precisely as I can with a view towards a reconstruction of society that will limit not only the power of the present billionaire traitors, but would be future ones.
I am not sure exactly what that would entail, but, I suspect that if we are serious about making everyone accountable to laws, including them, then we need some reforms which address their overweening power, because right now they simply control all the important venues including government and they act above the law.
So whatever is necessary to take them down, and make them equal before our laws and government, should be under review as an alternative.
Expropriation is certainly a tool in the toolbox. stick them in jail without stripping assets and you might as well not lock them up at all.
expropriation can be accomplished without reverting to some sort of failed communist experiment of wealth redistribution a la diblasio. That is a somescreen of stupidity which blinds us to the real problem of the truly rich bastids, the billionaires.
Size matters.
Saloth Sar
SALOTH: The Rothchilds weren’t American and a large share of their wealth was seized by the Nazis. Rothchilds were forced to flee Vienna Milano and Paris.
Anonymous, yes, of course that is so.
Funny how around that time, future American Jewish billionaire, teenage George Soros was riding along with his new, fascist Hungarian adoptive family father, as he seized Jewish properties as well. One wonders what effect this had on him. There is a lot of speculation about that out there if you care to read it. For example.
Here the Jewish News Service ponders, May one criticize Geo Soros without being an antisemite?
This is a rabbit hole, curioser and curioser. As a I gentile I am reluctant to say that such speculations, seem to me– can I say this? Confusing Talmudic-style discourses, at best
https://www.jns.org/opinion/can-one-criticize-george-soros-without-being-an-anti-semite/
Saloth Sar
“Here the Jewish News Service ponders, May one criticize Geo Soros without being an antisemite?”
Yes, but not because he was Jewish. He started off life as a terrible person and he is finishing it the same.
Star: Soros “started off life as a terrible person and he is finishing it the same.”
Exactly right. And that is the point to focus on.
As a teenager in Germany, he actively supported dictatorship. Now he’s importing that alien ideology to America. That’s one import that Americans should boycott.
Sam, what is your evidence that “As a teenager in Germany, he actively supported dictatorship”?
You should read this fact check of a related claim and reconsider:
https://www.reuters.com/article/uk-factcheck-photo-soros-nazi-bookkeeper/fact-check-photographshows-nazi-bookkeeper-notgeorge-soros-idUSKBN23P2TP
He doesn’t support dictatorships now (your claim “Now he’s importing that alien ideology to America”), and I don’t know why you think otherwise.
Those that rely on the left wing fact checkers rely on circular reasoning for they exist to defend the left.
This is the verdict of the fact checker: “False. This photograph shows Oskar Groening, not George Soros.”
What does that have to do with what Sam concluded? Nothing.
Reuters isn’t “left wing,” and I take it that you didn’t read the entire fact check. Among other things, Soros wasn’t a teenager in Germany. If you don’t like Reuters, it’s easy to find plenty of other sources that will tell you that Soros was born in Hungary and lived there until moving to the UK at the age of 17 after WWII ended.
Presumably you’re not Sam using a sock puppet account. I will wait for Sam to answer my question, “Sam, what is your evidence that ‘As a teenager in Germany, he actively supported dictatorship’?,” since you clearly cannot.
“Reuters isn’t “left wing,”
That is just an opinion.
“I take it that you didn’t read the entire fact check.”
That is just a guess.
” Among other things, Soros wasn’t a teenager in Germany.”
That is just wrong.
From the article: “Soros would have been 14 or 15 years old.”
“that will tell you that Soros was born in Hungary and lived there until moving to the UK at the age of 17 after WWII ended.”
Why do you presume I don’t know much about Soros?
Why do you presume anyone knows Soros’ exact age?
“Presumably you’re not Sam using a sock puppet account.”
That is a compliment. The answer is no. Sam seems able to stand up for himself. It looks like paranoia is winning your battles.
” since you clearly cannot.”
You can wait for Sam to answer the question. Why would you say “clearly cannot”? Don’t you realize that statement could be taken as an insult?
I dont fault Soros because he is a jew. I don’t fault him because he pretended to be gentile as his parents ordered him to do when they placed him with a fascist family as a youngster during the war. I don’t fault him because he stood by and watched his adoptive father confiscate Jewish properties for Hungarian state. I can cut teenager slack on those points
I fault him because he is now a billonaire financier, with a history of nation wrecking, not only via financial market and currency manipulations, such as England, or Thailand, or various other notches in his guns; but because he is an expert at ginning up unruly mobs of urban discontents to overthrow regimes that he does not personally like. This may have been Communist Albania, or Ukraine when it was pro-Russian, or it may be him funding BLM to get rid of Trump.
This billionaire exercises a massive power with deep cunning and disregard for the working people and middle classes who actually like the politicians that he chooses to displace with his destabilization operatoins. I could only appreciate him as I could a Sith-lord in a Star wars movie. Which is about what he is, precisely
I would imprison an expropriate him fully. He is a traitor to America, and a danger to orderly government anywhere. He has no public office nor mission that legitimizes all the destabilization operations that he has planned. He openly considers himself a kingmaker and indeed he is. Except the kings that he puts up into place are totally beholden to him and his class of high finance billionaire manipulators. Global oligarchs., They all should get expropriated in my view.
Government that is totally at the mercy of billionaires is going to be nothing more than a front for billionaires. The power of the state must be sufficient to reign in their excesses and flout their schemes to manipulate and defeat democracy. So lets get this straight. he is no champion of democracy. In fact he is the opposite. If you don’t get it, then you have been fooled too.
Saloth Sar
Sal, like you I fault him for a lot of things he did as an adult.
We differ because I fault him for what he did as a young man or child and how he explained those actions. His later actions are more of the same. Maybe you are unaware of his actions and his explanations. Maybe you were born in America so you had the luxury of growing up at a late age with tremendous security. People living under constant threat to their lives grow up a lot quicker, something you may not have had close enough contact with.
LMAO at your new comments today, “just an opinion.”
Are you too stupid to realize that you commented on the blog under this name for the first time yesterday, but you’re writing things that make it clear you’ve been posting here for a long time? You’re just a new sock account for Allan.
You are fixated on attacking CTHD. It’s one of the tics that gives you away in all of your new incarnations, Allan. That, and your go-to strategies for trolling –
Lie.
Insult.
Pretend to read someone’s mind and attack the person on the basis of your made up attribution.
Attribute your own failings to others.
Make up claims about what someone did in the past without ever linking to any evidence for your claim. You can’t, since it’s made up.
No one is calling you Young, John Say, Art Deco, or the names of any of the other regulars. You can’t help but reveal yourself with your verbal and behavioral tics, Allan, which are different from theirs. You’ll have to live with being called out for who you are, Allan, no matter how many new socks you create.
Anonymous, why all the excitement? You think just an opinion is another alias being used by Allan. You don’t know who Allan is and who he isn’t even if he is posting.
I note that you called a whole bunch of different people, Allan, and some of them are not even likely candidates.
Did it ever occur to you that you are a pri ck who adds nothing to the discussion? We know you lack the mental acuity but you are here all the time but still add nothing? Did you ever think that a lot of people think you are a pr ick, not for political reasons, but because of who you are.
That means more than one have a motive to post and cause you the grief you suffer. You insult loads of people over and over again who don’t respond. Wait, they don’t respond under their own aliases and use new ones. You are the one that is angry and foaming at the mouth. It is evident every time you post.
On the other hand anyone can note that almost all of the dozen or dozens of folk you call Allan actually post productive things. That is what gets you anonymous. Your inability to respond to things you don’t like so you respond stupidly and how do you look? Stupid.
You are going to develop a bleeding ulcer tracking down all the Allan’s. Get help quick before you bleed to death.
Poor Allan, you’re so thin-skinned that you take on multiple personalities to defend yourself with more of your go-to trolling strategies. What a sad little wanker you are.
Yet another insult by no content anonymous.
“just an opinion” is sounding increasingly like Allan. I might be wrong, but I refuse to knowingly have exchanges with Allan, and the possibility of him being Allan makes this exchange not worth it.
For the record, my claim that “Soros wasn’t a teenager in Germany” (emphasis added) wasn’t wrong.
The comment above is from me, CommitToHonestDiscussion.
First I am Sam, then I am Allan. It sounds like you are strung out because the fact check conclusion didn’t match what you are trying to say.
I suppose anyone who disagrees with you is Allan. My statements stand even if my name is Jonathan Turley. The Germany remark is correct but I was assuming Hungary since at the time it was under German control and I didn’t want to disagree on a non essential. Was Soros ever in Germany before leaving for the UK? I don’t think so.
Paranoia left untreated can get worse. Next thing we know is you will be saying I am Young, John Say, anonymous or Art Deco. Strike Art Deco because I don’t think you have had disagreements with him. But would that stop me from being Art Deco? That is the problem with paranoia.
Poor Allan, you’re getting confused. She told you “Presumably you’re not Sam” but you’re so dishonest and inattentive, that you pretend she called you Sam. Lying is one of your go-to strategies. Attributing your own failings to others is another of your go-to strategies. You’re the one who is paranoid here. No one is calling you Young, John Say, or any of the other regulars. You can’t help but reveal yourself with your verbal and behavioral tics.
Here is my correction (which, in fact, is a distinction without a difference): As a teenager, Soros actively supported the dictatorship in Germany (and in Hungary). (No matter what evidence I post for that, the Soros apologists will attempt to whitewash it. So what’s the point?)
For an example of how the courageous youth of the time fought dictatorship, see the Edelweiss Pirates — some of whom were sent to concentration camps. Others were merely beheaded.
That Soros is importing an alien ideology, e.g., collectivism, into America can be seen in the (racist) policies supported by his Open Society Foundation. And in the type of utter swine he finances for district attorneys.
P.S. Thanks, “just”, for the support.
Sam,
I asked “Sam, what is your evidence that ‘As a teenager in Germany, he actively supported dictatorship’?” because I want to see your evidence.
The point is to have an evidence-based discussion. So present your evidence for your claim that “As a teenager, Soros actively supported the dictatorship in Germany (and in Hungary).” If your evidence is accurate, I’ll accept it. I’m always open to learning from new (to me) evidence.
Refusing to present any tells me that you’re unwilling to test your own evidence. Don’t assume in advance — for no good reason — that it will be pointless. Several times in the past, I’ve changed my mind about something after someone presented evidence that I was wrong. (Let me know if you need to see some examples.) You, too, should be open to changing your mind. Are you?
“The point is to have an evidence-based discussion.”
That is coming from one who proved its case with a fact checker that had nothing to do with the discussion at hand. Soros was a teenager in Germany occupied Hungary. Commit cannot stand to be wrong, but argues by nit-picking words easily understood by others.
Looking around we see the anonymous from the left trying to distort the word “Presumably” which in short means asserted but not sure. He too has the problem of nit-picking all over the blog because that is his slimy nature.
What do they both have in common? Both called me Allan. I note Anonymous has gotten into trouble calling a lot of people Allan so I looked ahead and not much further ahead I note he just called John Galt, Allan, as well.
Both of these commenters are paranoid nit-pickers and neither has the ability to think deeper than the first level they come upon. Is it any wonder that their arguments are so small and without much meaning? No. They are both low level thinkers though Commit seems to write better than Anonymous who is often confused.
Maybe Anonymous and Commit are the same. Maybe Commit is Joe Friday as another commenter suggested. Who cares. We know what they are. Low level intellectual snobs or should I say intellectual slobs.
“Refusing to present any tells me that you’re unwilling to test your own evidence.”
Who do we know that piles on information frequently unrelated to the discussion? Commit of course. Commit is unable to hold a discussion without nit-picking or overwhelming the other with garbage links on her way down to the trash heap. That is an insult and therefore I must be Allan because no one else uses such insults with people that are so common and low. Unfortunately, as we have seen many people do and some, like anonymous, use phrases of others rather than creating their own. This is common on the right and the left.
“I’ve changed my mind about something after someone presented evidence that I was wrong. “
Why does Commit constantly say that or something similar. Because that is the opposite of who Commit is. There have been statements made of Commit lying and discussions regarding what was said or not said by others, Young comes to mind because of his lengthy discussion with heshe. Who knows maybe Young is also Allan. Maybe not but the paranoia of Commit will win the day.
Kurtz may be dead but sometimes I communicate with them as well.
You said: “at exploitation by Jewish moneylenders and peddlers and the like. he was not too far off the mark.
Would you like to expand on that? In particular the word exploitation.
A Friend
Hi Star
First I will link the relevant text by Leon Trotsky, on the Jewish question
https://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/1940/xx/jewish.htm
second I will remind the reader, who may be aware of this or not, that it was not just communists who thought that moneylending at interest was exploitation
It is the doctrine of Islam
It is (or was? ) the doctrine of Catholicism, See, “Vix Parvenit”
It is referenced as a sin in the laws of moses
Aristotle the pagan philosopher called interest “sterile money” and deplored it.
There is a long human tradition of deploring the exploitation of moneylending at interest.
The average American could just add up years of credit card interest if you want an empirical example.
How is it these billionaires an their banks can borrow from the Fed at less than 1% and somehow turn around and charge poor people 24% for store cards and credit cards?
Deplorable! They are the enemy and compound interest remains their oldest tool of “Exploitation”
Saloth Sar
I take the words from the cold below and leave out those of no importance while setting in *…* those words that matter.
“Trotsky … at exploitation by petty Jewish moneylenders and peddlers and the like. *he was not too far off the mark*
I have no concerns over justified opinions of any persons no matter what religion they hold. I don’t defend any of them, but I do defend the rest.
Well, read Trotsky’s essay, and see if you find any truth in it or not. I don’t like Trotsky, I don’t drool over him like the college professors do, but i have read some thins he wrote that were worth reading. I have read Lenin and Mao too, I found some gems in their manure piles too.
Michael Hudson, another Jewish fellow, and an economist, makes a strong critique of usury in our current American economic system. He also has written scholarly works on its regulation in the ancient world all the way back to Babylon.
Surely you are aware that during the middle ages, when usury was forbidden to Catholics, prior to the Reformation whenafter the Protestants embraced it; but before then, generally, moneylending was available on from those who could charge interest without fear of religious penalty, the Jewish people of Europe. See, Merchant of Venice. This is history. Always borrowers who labor under compound interest will come to resent their lenders. This was a well worn path in history, and I am no antisemite for mentioning it.
My initial point was to differentiate my criticism of billionaires as a super-caste above us, exploiting us, from the simplistic antisemitic notion, shared by many whether they admit or not, which incorrectly suspects that all the billionaires are Jewish. Or most of them. Of course many are but that is not my point. I want to be precise about this. This is why I mentioned Trotsky’s essay. Read it and you may see.
The economic dynamics that make billionaires the enemy, have little or nothing to do at this time in history, with their religion or ethnic background. The richest man in the world is Jeff Bezos, a white gentile. Bill Gates is too. Steve Jobs was actually an Arab by ancestry. but he is gone. Zuck is obviously Jewish. Carlos Slim of Mexico is Lebanese ancestry but he is likewise totally disconnnected from any concerns of group loyalties. None of these billionaires could care less at all about any religion or any ethnic group. NOR ANY NATION STATE EITHER. INCLUDING “AMERICA” EXCEPT AS BEAST OF BURDEN. They are the most supremely selfish and asocial creatures in this nation, riding atop us all, seeing only green.
One factor that is intertwined with the rise of the current crop of billionaires, that is worth mentioning, is technology. Now, forgive me for mentioning a real nazi, but again I will mention Martin Heidegger. Who actually was a nazi but was also a deeply insightful philosopher. His essay concerning technology, is worth reading. It is about how technology affects our existence. https://www.thenewatlantis.com/publications/understanding-heidegger-on-technology
I think before we continue to run headlong into every new technological trend, as we have in 2020 at breakneck pace, we should stop and question it. Question how it will affect our lives and our economy our society and our very existence. It seems none of our billionaires who are almost all at the top, uniformly technocrats to one degree or another, want us to do this. they want us to embrace every frankenstein idea they come up with. I seriously doubt that is wise and I invite other people to inquire into it as well
Saloth Sar
S., I was not talking about what Trotsky or others said. It was your agreement with him regarding “ Petty Jewish money lenders ”. Following that statement, you said, “*he was not too far off the mark*” The latter comment reflects your thinking, not Trotsky’s, and that is the statement of concern.
That comment excludes others as petty lenders and includes all Jews whether they were or not. What does that sound like? (Let me say right off the bat so there is no confusion. You are not an anti-Semite.)
There are no questions about Jews loaning money. Remember in many places they could not own land and what they could do for a living was limited because of anti-Semitism or other discriminatory practices. (I am not discussing usury though I probably agree with a lot that you may be reading about.)
“Surely you are aware that during the middle ages, when usury was forbidden to Catholics, prior to the Reformation ……….”
Yes. I am also faintly aware that Jews helped fill in the gap. Later jealousy or some other emotions arose and Jews were prevented from money lending only to be called back when the interest rate climbed to usurious rates. Their prior lending habits were far more favorable to the borrower. (This is my poor recollection of one point in history so do not have any problem in filling in the details or correcting me.)
Returning to the discussion, in the phrase petty Jewish lenders, omitting the word Jewish IMO would leave a generality that would be more suitable.
As an aside SS could be considered a poor choice of initials.
Star, while Kurtz (SS posting name until his guy lost the election and he couldn’t face the public) accepts that there are admirable people of all races, he still insists on dividing people by race to the point of calling me disloyal to whites and himself – a white lawyer! – persecuted in modern America. He also favors nationalism and the forming of alliances with other majority white countries, regardless of any other considerations (Russia). It’s a primitive losing formulation with no future and he seems to relish the fatalism implied in that. Let him go there by himself.
Joe, I don’t normally respond to persons of your type. Kurtz, though he isn’t the most careful when filtering information, is basically honest. You are not. You assume him to be a racist, but I don’t believe he advocates racism at all though he accepts truths that are sometimes hard to swallow and sometimes require more facts. You do none of that but you can tell the same lie over and over again with a straight face
ha this fool joe. “regardless of any other considerations (Russia)”
i could give you a list of good reasons to make nice with Russia but if thousands of nuclear bombs on thousands of missiles doesn’t do the trick convincing you, nothing will
of course i have often supplied essay and comments from a very liberal former CIA analyst Ray McGovern who briefed many presidents on a daily basis.,
Im no liberal but I have huge respect for Ray. Maybe Im a racist, but I would doubt Ray is. Maybe I am a chauvanist and a nationalist, but Ray isnt.
So why is Ray a constant advocate for deconfliction with Russia??
Because he is smart, and he loves peace. Thats why. He’s a peace activist now, a smart and sincere one
briefer of many presidents daily over his decades of service, from retirement now he tries to brief Biden, on how not to be suckered by the war pigs about Russia
https://raymcgovern.com/2020/12/20/vips-memo-to-biden-dont-be-suckered-on-russia/
Saloth Sar
I don’t think there were any billionaires in the 1940s. Supposedly John D Rockefeller was the first one around 1916 or so.
One of the richest American Jews of that era may have been Arthur Hays Sulzberger, owner of the NYT.
The richest man in America in 1945 was a man who openly mistrusted and disliked the Jewish group as such, Henry Ford
The issue today we have with billionaires is totally different than whatever the situation was in the first half of the 20th century.
Antitrust rules broke up Standard Oil, and took John D Rock down a few notches.
Henry Ford did not like the war, even if he profited off of it. He was forced to join the fight or else.
FDR was clearly the American Caesar during WWII. Government power was above the private interests.
By the 1960s and 70s, much had changed. Most of all, that., The private financial interests now rule.
Today it’s obvious that our billionaires like Zuck or Bezos are oligarchs in a way that John D or Henry Ford, never were.
Saloth Sar
I agree with Thinkitthrough on a lot of things, but on the issue of billionaires selling us out, I’ve found an ally in Saloth Sar. It’s a big deal to me, too.
Jewish people have always been disproportionately featured among the rich, not because they are evil, rather, because they are industrious.
I do not call the rich evil nor Jews. The world is full of plenty of good rich people and plenty of good Jews.
Don’t mistake my naming the adversary as “billionaires” as me equating them with Jews. It is not Soros & Bloomberg’s Jewishness with which I have a problem. I think they could care less for their ancestors or their supposed religion. Both are essentially atheists the way I understand it.
Likewise the richest man in the world Jeff Bezos is a white skinned gentile. As I am too. but he is our adversary noneetheless.
Billionaires are a precise group of financial leviathans that in nearly every instance control our mass media, universities, and government through their financial power and control. Because I believe our government is being used to enslave and destroy us, I look to those who control it as the enemy.
Billionaires is the essence of our enemy. It is simple. I am focused on naming the enemy precisely.
To say it is communists for example, something I believed in my youth, is incorrect. the CCP are national adversaries of the US government it is true, and I do not wish for them to be my overlord. I dont like them controlling Joe Biden or any other big American figure. But, they are acting on behalf of their government and people, who are not my daily problem. And our country here could be sovereign and independent from them, would it not be for billionaires wanted to use their slave labor and import their cheap goods and take their money to finance US treasuries. So it’s the billionaires stateside who are my bigger problem, not commies across the ocean.
And moreover, to conflate communism from university liberals that is some sort of Trotskism, with Maoism or present day CCP ideology, would be incorrect on too many levels to elaborate quickly.
ANTIFA, let’s take them as another example to elaborate. Anarchists mostly, not communists. Crazed lunatics, barbarians, savages. Dope fiends, many of them. But, as a group, they are directed by their “organizers” that is to say, paid workers from BLM for example, who have received the donations not only from Soros and his Open Society foundations, but also, many global corporations, like Wall Mart or Nike. Hence they are tools of the global billionaires, even though they pretend to care for the workers. That is a lie. they are pawns and useful idiots.
Here’s another exmaple. Radical university professors. They are also tools. A proper university CEO can simply fire them all, tenure or not. Trust me it can be done and if it cant be done in the usual business, it can be done in a bankruptcy reorganization, legally. And a billionaire who holds the strings, could order it done, except they dont, why? Because they LOVE university radicals just like they love Diblasio.
Look not to the tool which abuses you, but the hand that wields it.
That hand is: billionaires
Saloth Sar
Kurtz’s hero’s only significant legislation was a huge tax cut that we all will be paying for for a decade. He’s fine with billionaires and doesn’t GAF about working people.
Keep on looking backwards Joe. Trump will be gone soon and you will have to find another boogeyman
As for the deductibility of meals, did it occur to you that will help small businesspeople who eat out at lunch?
Is that so bad? No. it is a trifle. But you go ahead and flog it if you like./
Get started on reading the 1800 page bill however, before you scold too much, or else you are no better than our negligent lawmakers who approved what they had not seen
Saloth Sar
The recent Covid bill was not Trump’s most significant legislation. That would be the 2017 huge tax cut for corporations and the 1% that Kurtz had no problem with. He’s against billionaires like Whimpy hates hamburgers.
Joe Friday,
Focusing on Trump is off-target. Our debt to GDP is one, of many, concerns:
https://www.cbo.gov/publication/56516
In 2012, our debt was 70% of GDP. If you earned $100,000 and you were in debt $70,000, would that cause you concern? Now it’s worse and the economy is still hobbled.
Prairie, my concern in that post was not Trump, but Kurtz’s pretend concern for working people and fake war on billionaires. My only remaining concern with Trump is that he doesn’t deteriorate further and become dangerous in his last days. I don’t get your concern.
By the way, any American making $100k who has only $70k left on their mortgage is in good shape.
there’s no war. I only advocate nonviolent tax resistance, to weaken the corrupt federal regime and impair its ability to borrow.
indeed I recommend this information clearinghouse about the subject from peace activists
https://nwtrcc.org/quick-steps-tax-day-2020/
of course all politics is a continuum of force. maybe one day there will be a war. one in which it’s not only the billionaires gaining ground.
We will hopefully live long enough to find out.
Sal Sar
Pol Pot,
“Look not to the tool which abuses you, but the hand that wields it.”
Targeting billionaires is off-target. I haven’t looked closely, but most of the politicians aren’t billionaires. I don’t think Clapper or Brennan are billionaires either. They have their own agendas and aren’t puppets.
Prarie Rose, if there is any institution of government that has been in a mind-meld with high finance, particularly investment banking, it is the CIA.
There are countless history books about it, feel free to take a look. Dulles, Bush, Donovan, are a few names you will find.
Then there are the economic dynamics. You can refer to Michael Hudson’s Super Imperialism for an explanation of that, or Global Minotaur by Varoufakis. Good books.
Regardless of anyone’s intentions, however, It may very well be impossible for America to rebuild its industrial base until the dollar collapses or is replaced as the world reserve currency. That will not happen under the current arrangements. The financialization will proceed apace, against all efforts to slow it down, such as Trump’s, ie the trade war, which was worth a stab and made a little progress towards onshoring, but, overally essentially failed, because the financial forces and incentives are too strong. But, a debt default is possible and then BOOM it could happen. With devaluation and a major reform of government, we could be back in business fast.
But under current trends, everything including the covid lockdowns and incessant digitization trend, all things will exacerbate the divide between flyover and the coastal elite regions like LA and NYC, that grow fat and rich off trade and the “FIRE sector” finance insurance and real estate.
As the rest of us suck wind. If we are dug in deep here in flyover, and we can’t just leave, then we face a downward ramp under our current corrupt system.
In politics, you have to have an enemy or nothing ever gets done. Im sorry but this is reality. I have produced links to Carl Schmitt a hundred times. You can take a long look at his work if you want to test the notion. For my money, small as it is, billionaires are the enemy
Sal Sar
“In politics, you have to have an enemy or nothing ever gets done.”
Remember the peace dividend? When I first heard that phrase used I knew we were in trouble and the nation has fallen at an increasing rate since then.
That mindset was naive and persists today.
peace dividend, like how we were going to spend less on defense? yeah that didnt work out.
there are always enemies, real, or, imagined!
and here they keep flogging russia russia russia as a narrative whether it ever fits the facts or not
the billionaires hate Russia, basically because Putin is a sovereign actor, and won’t allow them to take over his country, as they nearly did under Yeltsin, who was weak
the CCP are sovereign too, but the american elite billionaire traitors are in bed with them, because of profits. profits that they can get, at the pleasure of CCP of course
the CCP will use them to make us weaker and weaker before our masters., these billionaires. and they want to destroy American sovereignty to keep their rackets going
comprador elite traitors, oligarchs, and plutocrats. we should end them.
Sal Sar
Pol Pot,
I have started reading Schmitt, and I find his writing abhorrent. And, worse, I do fear for my country.
Well, you may find Schmitt abhorrent, but he describes politics accurately. His theory is not only backtested it has forward predictive value.
The keystone concept is the concept of enmity as the driver of group forming consciousness in politics.
This goes back to the ancient cities of Sumer. The roving bands of savages were out there attacking the newly formed cities, which were, of course, defined by WALLS.
The people inside the gates, were citizens. They formed a “polity.” The roving savages, were outside. They were the enemy.
Many things change but that core distinction is operative yet today. It is more fluid, more nuanced, and the sets and subsets of friend and foe move around in three dimensions
But they are still there.
And based on this, I have analyzed our situation as Americans and I inform: the billionaires are our enemy.
Saloth sar
btw. the richest elected politician in America is the governor of Illionis, Jay Pritzker. He is a disaster for the state and Democrats I know consider him, awful
he comes from a family of other billionaires
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/J._B._Pritzker#Early_life,_family,_and_education
one might only say, the only thing to admire about him, is that he at least has the chutzpah to step out front and accept elected office and not just play with the office holders from behind the scenes. of course he used to do that too, as one can see from wiki
Mikey Bloomberg is another billionaire who held public office. He was mayor of NYC. And a lot better mayor than Diblasio was by far. And yet, Littley Mikey gins up a lot of trouble, now.
For some people I know who live in NYC, they have rosy memories of Bloomberg’s term in office. The place is a real mess now.
Saloth Sar
Ben Franklin once said that pure democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what’s for dinner. Without an individual right to his property, limiting what may be taken, a mob will simply take everything the successful individual has.
Wealth redistribution appeals to the masses. Out of everyone in the country, few study really hard in school, or apply themselves diligently in their work, becoming indispensable. Few are brilliant inventors or entrepreneurs at the level of Elon Musk or Einstein. Few are doctors. The thundering successful are the special and rare. There are many who want what they have.
To the guys sitting on their mother’s couch, smoking weed, going nowhere, the thought of taking from the rich sounds great. Democrat politicians have become wealthy career politicians by telling the poor and lower middle class that the employers and the rich have taken from them. It’s not fair that anyone is better off than them. It can’t possibly have to do with hard work, or having a family that emphasized work and study ethics and staying out of trouble. No. It must be because of skin color, the patriarchy, colonialism, or greed. If someone gets anywhere in live, they’re bad. Nothing you did and no decision you ever made had anything to do with where you are today. It’s the white capitalist cis gendered hetero patriarchy that kept you down. They owe you.
Tell someone he can have something for nothing, and he’ll say, “Yes.”
It gets a lot of votes, clearly, but it will plow the country into the ground and lead to deprivation, starvation, and human rights abuses just like all the other “power to the people” movements throughout history.
Since Democrats have total control over the education system, voters won’t know any better.
Karen,
“few study really hard in school”
While learning a great deal in school is important, there’s so much emphasis on the scores, on the grade, that plenty of people study hard…to get the grade. They don’t think about what they learned and the why, and, then, to synthesize it, and connect it to wider concepts. To be fair, I think a lot of schools have forgotten how and why all these pieces fit together.
Wealth redistribution appeals to the masses.
Which masses? Karen, can you name an occidental country which taxes assets above and beyond (1) real property taxes and (2) capital gains taxes?
Joe Blow off the sidewalks of Dayton doesn’t want your property. Bill diBlasio does.
The United States taxes gifts and estate transfers above a certain level right now. Like 11 million or so
people with that much may be rich, but they arent anywhere close to billionaires. soaking the rich at that level is counterproductive which is why Democrats and Republicans worked together to raise that level up from where it was before, 600,000, back in mid 90s.
But neither Republicans nor Democrats dare to advance policies that will harm billionaires. At the billionaire level, the value is mostly locked up inside going concerns anyhow. Like Amazon.
Tax policy is not the tool to get after oligarchs like Jeff Bezos or Zuck
Antitrust is. For starters. Then other things. That is, if government wants to actually act like it has power over private interests. But we know, right now, that’s fake and they dont.
But they could. They could act that way. things could change very quickly
Look at Chairman Xi. Is he going to let Jack Ma do whatever he wants? No I dont think so. He’s lowered the boom on Alibaba. Antitrust. Jack Ma is a communist party member too, but, Xi is protecting the power of the state against his own billionaires.
We can see that in the PRC, the government is actually the sovereign, and not the billionaires. Oh they are adversaries of the US and maybe even enemies. They do things to harm the whole US, government and people. But from a theoretical perspective, a bird’s eye view, if you want to know what it looks like when government is in charge and not just a front for money, then this is the best example in the recent news.
Saloth Sar
When people move out of state, they tend to keep voting the same. That means when New Yorkers and California Democrats flee the high taxes, homelessness, high regulations, and lack of jobs in Deep Blue States, they keep on voting for exactly those policies in their new Red States, turning them purple or blue.
They make no connection between their voting behavior and the reasons why they move.
Karen S. TRUE. Most people don’t have any, yes any critical thinking skills.
Well said, Karen!
Why is there suspicion of voter fraud perpetuated by Democrats? California is the reason. The law in California used to require that a family member or a person living in the same household could return someone else’s mail ballot. In 2016 the law was changed to allow anyone to return someone else’s mail ballot. Voting in California does not require an ID as proof of residence. Mail ballots have been restricted to qualified voters. Wait for it. The next move will be for mail in ballots for everyone because of how well they worked during the pandemic. Never let a deadly crises go to waste. Anyone who is not suspicious of laws that make voting opaque Is a fool indeed.
I have posted this statement by Malcolm X prior, but with the statements by the Worst Mayor of New York City and the Manifesto of Dalton it is congruous:——— I have substituted the word that Malcolm used for Blacks do to this Blogs moderation protocol.———-
“The worst enemy that the Blacks have is this white man that runs around here drooling at the mouth professing to love Blacks and calling himself a liberal, and it is following these white liberals that has perpetuated problems that Blacks have. If the Black wasn’t taken, tricked or deceived by the white liberal, then Blacks would get together and solve our own problems. I only cite these things to show you that in America, the history of the white liberal has been nothing but a series of trickery designed to make Blacks think that the white liberal was going to solve our problems. Our problems will never be solved by the white man.”. Malcolm X ——-You can read the total Manifesto at Nakeddollar
George W, does this mean Blacks have ‘more’ respect for the nakedly racist Whites? Like Blacks prefer miserly White congressmen seeking to cut social programs??
You couldn’t name program slated for cuts and other adjustments that had (1) a broad clientele and (2) was not suffering from problems derived from poor actuarial assumptions. (It doesn’t seem to occur to you that 3/4 of the working aged black population are not at any moment in time drawing benefits of any kind).
Tabby, Trump was floating balloons, not long ago, regarding a phase-out of Social Security. You’re telling us that would ‘not’ have affected Blacks (and everyone else)?
The above troll fancies knowing anything about social security when all he does is play with butt plugs when not trolling online
💩
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OoKkQhehsOo
Estovir, that’s ‘you’: the butt plug guy. The nerdy loser of a troll we can never escape.
Thanks for the ass-pull, Peter. Always an education. I’m not seeing a quotation.
I guess you would have to ask Malcolm X what he really meant when he wrote in very easily understood language. Malcolm was writing about disingenuous politicians trying to act for the black community with only personal ambition in mind. The perfect example of slight of hand. Step right up ladies and gentlemen and tell me what shell the pea is under to win the prize. From the carnival straight home to your community.
Except that Alex Haley actually wrote the biography of Malcom X which is funny since he plagiarized Roots.
Martin Luther King plagiarized a lot, including his dissertation, even copying errors.
He might deserve an honorary Doctor, but not one for academics.
He didn’t plagiarize Roots or much of anything else. An academic named Harold Courlander sued him for plagiarizing passages from one of Courlander’s books. The plagiarized passages amounted to a tiny percentage of Haley’s doorstop text.
Haley’s 3d wife has described the process of how the book was completed over an 18 month period. Haley was not a man of Kantian discipline. She assisted him in getting the material organized and completing the manuscript. It’s a reasonable wager Haley was too scatterbrained to realize he’d copied some of Courlander’s passages. Another possibility is that his wife actually wrote the parts of manuscript which contained the plagiarized material. Haley had actually met Courlander and had some correspondence with him; his wife had not. BTW, the plagiarized passages added some color to the narrative; they did not advance the narrative or thesis.
Haley made some real and crippling errors in the text, and these have been partially elucidated by genealogists in their own professional literature. I don’t think as yet anyone has teased out a corrected narrative. It is fairly securely known that Haley’s great-great grandfather was born in Allamance County, NC ca. 1806. The identity of the previous generations is murky. It’s also known that their was a familial relationship between the Lea family of Allamance County and the Waller family of Spotsylvania County, Va.
But I believe Haley paid a settlement because of the allegations of plagiarism. However it came about it seems another’s work ended up in his book. I didn’t say all of it was plagiarized, not on an MLK industrial scale, but enough. The author is ultimately responsible for the book published in his name. I think Tribe blamed some of his ‘borrowings’ on student researchers but it was his name on the book and the credit, and shame, was his. Same with Haley.
But I believe Haley paid a settlement because of the allegations of plagiarism.
Yes, he paid a settlement. We’re talking about widely scattered passages that might have amounted to 1% of the text and which contained material that could have been readily excised.
. I didn’t say all of it was plagiarized, not on an MLK industrial scale, but enough. The author is ultimately responsible for the book published in his name.
You’re being a pharisaical creep.
I enjoyed Roots and I enjoyed his book on Malcolm X. I was forced to read them in school, but I enjoyed them anyways. Enjoyed in a twisted sort of way, since the white devil is the bete noir of both.
I guess this is part of the reason why as a white person I have a strong racial identity. As a Gen X my race has been demonized my entire life.
The little black kids waiting in groups to to ambush white kids caught alone after school used to say crazy stuff like “that’s for Kunta kinte!” as they would lay on the blows
I remember it like I remember the coppery taste of blood in my mouth. Such things are hard to forget
Saloth Sar
Kurtz, I didn’t realize you were such a toddler. 🙂
I think the real point Malcolm X is that you can’t rely on someone else to make you equal, even well-meaning someone’s. You have to take responsibility for raising yourself up. Social programs can be good, but they can also hold people down.
A true liberal would equate what Malcolm X said to White Racisms, rather then avoid looking in the mirror. Maybe you should read what Bob Woodson, the late Walter Williams, Cal Thomas or Thomas Sowell have to say about the subject. The liberal left has caused more problems for the black community and other minorities in all elements of life, education the primary failing and that being the source to transection to a better life. Why are public schools in poor communities always failing? It sure isn’t do to lack of funding it’s allocation by those in charge of distribution. Chicago, Baltimore,New York City etc all controlled by liberals.
ah George Brother Malcolm was right, but even more so, what he said is also true of WHITE liberals who trick WHITE common folk
these are all pawns of the billionaires who want to shear us all like sheep, and perhaps soon slaughter us all, too, with another “Virus”
Sal Sar