Update: Sincere thanks to Mr. Joseph P. Trippi for stopping by our comments section and giving us the opportunity to correct an error made by the Washington Times and relayed by us. Mr. Trippi does not condone the use of racial epithets and confectionary missiles in political debate. The Washington Times has issued a correction. We do likewise, apologize for the misunderstanding, and are genuinely happy to learn that the Maryland Democratic Party's roster of jerks has one fewer member than previously thought.
However, I cannot accept Mr. Trippi's associated charge that the Washington Times's error was the result of a conservative political agenda. The Times reporter seems to have made an honest, if sloppy, editing error, and his editors were quick to correct the record. This behavior compares quite favorably with the New York Times, which cannot after weeks of controversy manage to adequately correct factual misstatements appearing on its Op-Ed page, despite a clear stated policy and the apparently sincere efforts of both Gail Collins and Byron Calame.
In a followup to Tom's post of yesterday, highlighting the idiotic and offensive statements of a number of Maryland Democrats in defense of a series of racial insults and battery-by-Nabisco directed at Republican Lt. Gov. and Senate candidate Michael Steele, I'm happy to report that the state party seems to have a few members whose elevators still travel to the top floor. In particular, Senate candidate and former NAACP president Kweisi Mfume distanced himself from remarks made by his spokesman, Joe Trippi (yes, that Joe Trippi), who had characterized pelting Mr. Steele with Oreo cookies as an example of "pointing out the obvious."
Martin O'Malley (who is also running in the Senate primary and may therefore find himself on the wrong end of a Trippi-launched Rice Krispies Treat barrage before next spring), intoned "If there are criticisms to be leveled, they should be leveled on issues." I agree, Mayor O'Malley. Let's get down to issues. An examination of the fortunes of the black Baltimore underclass under the forty-year leadership of the Democratic Party would bring to light a number of issues that might fairly be addressed. Pass the milk.
34 comments:
By cutting Medicare and food stamps?
What R's should do and what they would do are probably two different things.
Should:
1) vouchers for education;
2) vouchers for education;
3) vouchers for education.
This falls under the umbrella of privatization, however, and you are asking from something other than that.
Hmmm ... good question!
Would
How about the following free classes:
- parenting 101;
- finances 101;
- abstinence 101.
Should, in addition to the above:
- birth control 101.
This can all be done at the local level.
Even before your last post, Connie, I wanted to do a GOP mea culpa, or at least to admit a lack of imagination.
I think we're largely deaf to details. We favor principles over process. It might be a man thing.
We're largely disinterested in the minutae of local politics, whether to spend this million here on more computers for the kids or on more carpool incentives.
We'd rather cut $100 million worth of such stuff, plow it back into business tax incentives, and get some jobs back into the inner city, because the working man tends away from less socially productive pursuits than crime or the dole.
The attraction of a Rudy Guiliani, and Rudy Giuliani sui generis among (thinking) Republicans, despite his almost total disagreement with them on sex issues, is that he actually applied conservative principles to local governance ("the broken window theory") and by nearly all accounts substantially improved the quality of life for all in the largest city in America.
I think we overrate individual self-governance too much. Or not...
I would love to know what how an 'editing error' caused that kind of mistake.
These are the kinds of mistakes that deserve more than a page 10 correction announcement. This is a front page retraction and/or a firing offense.
Matt's comment is right on the money. Thank you, Mr. Trippi, for joining our forum to set the record straight.
Wow, Joe Trippi posted here. I'm really honored to share space with the man.
I wouldn't read too much into Mr. Trippi's patronage. He made his reputation as an online wunderkind, and I suspect he uses RSS feeds and aggregators to keep track of who's saying what about him and his candidate(s) du jour.
And yes, anyone who reads the Washington Post clearly doesn't desire news but prefers propaganda
Now, now, Connie, the WaPo has been trying to do better and its reputation is now certainly far ahead of the NYT and LAT in that respect.
Oh, you meant the Washington Times, didn't you.
Heh.
No offense to my Republican friends here, but my problem with Republicans in this context is I'm not really sure what commitment they have to making the lives of the black poor underclass better. Not to say that in the abstract they wouldn't favor it, but that it merits any significant considerations where they would be willing to actually sacrifice for it.
I suppose, Connie, that rather than consider what sacrifices I might be willing to make (because I'm already making some), I'd first rather talk about what society owes to its members. Ultimately, I think it owes them opportunity (and/or a freedom from onerous obstacles). We can argue over what the precise definition of opportunity might be, but I can say that it is not the same as (outcome) fairness. The promised land of the civil rights struggle was equal opportunity, not parity (even if one would hope that might come)…and I believe we are at a point now where most of the advancement for minorities will come from the efforts of its individuals.
The frustrating part for me, as an outsider, is watching people buy into the notion that there is no hope…that the entire system is stacked against them and explains away any poor choices an individual may make. No program can convince people that this is not true…there is no dollar amount that we can throw at this that will make someone say that things are now fair. And this crushes my desire to sacrifice.
The real hope for overcoming these problems is an intense desire to overcome the system, in spite of its obstacles and past injustices on the part of the minorities AND personal engagement from the rest of us, so that any assistance provided is viewed not as pity or reparations, but as the fruit of our genuine care.
As I sat in my living room last night, rereading some of my old textbooks and poring over social welfare data while preparing for my paper on locality development, I came to a realization.
Neither side is wholly wrong or right. The more I learn, the more I see that both sides have excellent points and that the bulk of their contentions are not mutually exclusive. Everyone agrees on the problems, and many agree on possible solutions. Where we disagree tends to be on implementation - and there is plenty of middle ground here to work with - and causation. The causation is the sticking point, and here is where the most reconciliation is possible. Through discussions here, in class, and in the books I am forced to devour by evil, evil professors I have come to see that when it comes to causation, both sides score important points and both sides engage in erroneous thinking. For example, conservatives are largely (not entirely, but largely) wrong for emphasizing welfare itself as the problem. The statistics don't bear that out. However, liberals, in their fervent desire to wash away the stains of multi-generational racial guilt, refuse to focus on what the conservatives have the guts to address personal behavior, which does have bearing on the problems of poverty.
The problem of poverty is too important to waste time trying to score ideological points over one another. So I'm declaring a personal detente. I want solutions, not arguments over causation. And I'll do my best to live up to it, even though old habits are hard to break.
It's too early to think this hard. Where's my Starbucks?
My own kids are homeschooled but I see no reason that should be subsidized by the state.
Wow ... we have something in common ... or at least had something in common until my oldest started private school.
Using the argument that "tax money ought to educate our kids", then the idea of vouchers is reasonable.
If you buy into the view of the teachers union, then you'd think that "government schools" would cease to exist if vouchers were in place.
Arguments for:
-vouchers will allow those who cannot afford a private education to get one;
- those stuck in failing inner-city schools can leave;
- competition will force PSS to increase efficiency, lower cost.
What would happen to school funding if all of the private school kids suddenly showed up?
First off, let's thank James for a wonderful AHA. I've had that feeling many times, James. The dynamic tension between left and right is probably a good thing when it comes to policy. Even if I think the left is wrong about prescriptions, they do make sure some things are given priority that the right might not think enough about.
Second, that Washington Times bit was bad. By virtue of the Golden Rule, I'm compelled to feel sorry for Trippi. I imagine he's pleased the Dem. establishment didn't come out and bash him ultra-quickly like the White House did Bill Bennett for an absolute non-offense.
Can you give me a good reason the public should subsidize the educational choices of the wealthy?
The public should fund the education of all.
Using your logic, the poor should suffer because they cannot afford better.
ALL voucher programs implemented in the USA have taken LESS money (on a per pupil basis) than the public cost of education.
Thus, the money available per pupil increases when vouchers are offered.
Tlaloc...your "punish the rich" attitude has the unintended consequence of beating down the poor.
You mean if the rich mommies and daddies had to send their kids to public school? Well you'd see school funding take off.
I'm assuming you're being sarcastic, but my question is real. What would the state do in that situation? Here in Chicago, the Catholic schools represent an enormous amount of the total school age population. If they were to suddenly pull the plug, what would happen?
The answer is that the state would be forced to come up with more money, either because they have a system that funds education by headcount or because the impact to the local schools would be devastating.
The gov't has been given a mandate to fund the education of all students. Private schools only mask what the true cost of that mandate really is.
Tlaloc. I am short in time. Needless to say, a quick google search gave me this link.
First, this program is not for your so-called wealthy, but for the poor.
Tell me, please, why do liberals oppose these programs? You don't need to answer, I already know why.
That year the schools would suffer terribly and the next year the fundung measure for the schools might actually pass. I don't understand how you can recognize that the public education is insufficient for the task and then suggest a measure that only drains the coffers further to provide money to those who don't need it.
I only suggest the measure to show that the public has accepted the responsibility to pay for the education of all students.
Your assumption that we shouldn't fund education for the rich would be more plausible if it weren't for the fact that a lot of people a lot wealthier than I am get their child's education paid for when they send them to public schools.
And your link to day school programs does not represent the reality of the private school market. Because schools are schools, most private schools are going to cost about $1-2K less annually than the typical area public school.
It's simply an assault on social services exactly like social security "reform," tax "reform," and welfare "reform." Its the continuing tale of class warfare.
It's actually just the opposite. The current system offers a take-it-or-leave-it approach to school choice, which limits the poor relative to the rich. If I'm rich enough, whew, I have a choice. A voucher-like program changes that...it just makes it a little harder for the gov't to operate.
T...the data on the CNN site in inconclusive. Where I live, there are a number of private schools that cost well below $5000 per year.
The mean cost of private school is probably closer to $5000.
See my last post, it's a blatant attack of the rich upon the poor.
Nope ... its because the teachers unions (not teachers, per se, but the unions) do not want to lose their grip on their government sponsored monopoly.
Tlaloc,
Why do you support the current monopoly on education?
Why do you support predatory pricing in education?
Why do you support forcing the inner city kids to stay in schools that have metal detectors and gangs?
Its time for you to give us a reason to NOT have vouchers.
Click here for better statistics on the tuition at private schools.
Hardly the expense that you quoted from CNN. Say you have three schools charging $5000, $10,000, and $15,000 for tuition. What is the median tuition? Of what use is the median?
The CNN report is misusing statistics to say the least. This chart does the calculation properly, by weighting according to the number of students.
Why do you support the current monopoly on education?
There is no monopoly on education. Otherwise, there would be no private schools for you to advocate vouchers for. There is a prevalent public education system because most people can't afford private tuitions and the state has a vested interest in an educated populace.
Why do you support predatory pricing in education?
I don't think he's doing any such thing. He's pointing out a simple economic fact: The demand for education is inelastic. It's much like our current economy based on oil. There will ALWAYS be universal demand for education. With demand constantly increasing with population, private educators, much like oil corporations, can charge what they want for education in a private system. As with gasoline and other high-demand products, you will see prices rise and eventually you will see education, much like private Tier 1 universities, rise out of the reach of lower and middle class consumers. Take my county of Santa Clara for instance. Preschool at the district and county levels is highly impacted, and so only limited space is available. Given the costs of operating a business in the area, there are not enough private preschools to fill demand, driving costs through the roof, forcing middle income parents out of the competition for preschool slots. Are the middle income children less deserving of early education because Mommy and Daddy don't make over $100K a year?
Why do you support forcing the inner city kids to stay in schools that have metal detectors and gangs?
Guess what? The neighborhoods have gangs too, and they spend way more time there than in school. Are you going to bus the families to the suburbs, too? First off, the whole gang problem is wildly inflated because it's so sensational and involves "dem brown folks." Second, rural schools perform no better. In fact, according to a recent DoE study, neither do charter schools. The best performing schools are found in neighborhoods with high property values (and therefore better funding) and with high-income parents who contribute personal funds and are more likely able to afford having one parent stay home with the children.
Private schools on average perform no better than public schools, partly because they have no standards to adhere to. Studies indicate that vouchers will provide $1-3,000 (depending on state and regional funding). If the average cost is, assuming you're right (and I'm pretty sure you're not) $5,000, those inner city parents still aren't going to easily scrape together the extra $2-4,000, which represents a huge chunk of their income.
Vouchers sound great ideologically, but are not economically feasible or educationally viable.
What is the median tuition? Of what use is the median?
CLA, I think you're confusing "median" with "average" or "mode." In your example, there is no median. There is an average and a mode (both $10,000).
Furthermore, CLA, you're argument fails to account for the fact that sectarian private schools have a revenue stream outside their tuition: namely, religious organization subsidization. It's a tad misleading; sectarian schools can afford to charge less because they get support from religious donors and their sponsoring organizations (such as a diocese or parish or temple, et cetera). If you were to remove that confounding variable, a true cost-of-education figure might emerge.
JE ... CNN used median, a useless statistic for the task at hand. I was merely pointing that out. Sorry if I was vague.
1) Sure, religious schools are subsidized, but that does not matter to the family that has to pay tuition.
2) There would be more private schools if the government sponsored schools were not priced at predatory levels (ie, $0).
3) You're right, the education system is only a monopoly if you are poor; ie, no choice.
What Tlaloc said.
The AVERAGE is a totally useless stat according to CLA's argument.
The MEDIAN is crucial.
The MODE, well, no one cares about the mode, unless we're referring to the stuff that goes on top of some apple pie.
I don't see that society has any such responsibility.
Sure you do. Every child that enrolls at the public school must be accepted. If I move, the state/federal money follows my child to the new school. Why shouldn't the money be able to follow the child somewhere else?
A parent might want to seek out a school that teaches racism, or flat earth, or whatever but society has no need to pay for that.
I think we could come to some agreement on the minimum that an accredited school would teach.
I'm sorry Matt but the Cato institute is (like the NR) terribly partisan.
OK. If you don't like Cato, that's fine. But the number of parochial and private protestant schools in Chicagoland is extremely large, and they do not have tuitions (including subsidies) that approach the figures you cite. Not every private school is a university lab school.
It's utterly ridiculous to pretend they'll be suddenly sending their kids off to princeton jr.
Again, not every private school is princeton jr. Look at the number of inner-city catholic and baptist schools...certainly they're subsidized by their respective churches, but there are still parents that decide to pay for it.
You'll have to work long and hard to convince me that your motives aren't simply a selfish "more for me".
Right back at you. No offense, but that is really a load of garbage. If private school kids all of a sudden showed up at the local public school, you would HAVE to cough up more money. Your arguement is actually just as, check that, way more selfish than mine. You want my help with your education costs, but you don't want to help me with mine (not to mention the likelihood that you probably earn more money than 2/3 of my school's parents).
Bull. Society has a responsibility to provide education. Your part of that society and whether you use the schools or not you benefit from their existence.
Just to clarify...I don't take personal offense to the arguement that I need to pull my weight in society, and that I'm mistaken about what is reasonable. I do, however, think its ridiculous in this situation to imply that my motives are only selfish - as if no one else benefits from this arrangement.
Because that child has an alternative provided for free.
But it is not free to the state. The state raises money for every child it is responsible for, and then sends it to the chosen (public) school. Why does the state not have responsibility for my kids (especially when I pay into the funding system)?
Or to put it another way: okay fine but I define the accreditiation qulifications to only include public schools.
Let's see. The state mandates that all children must go to school in order to have an educated population. Why would they let kids go to private schools if they thought they weren't meeting some minimum standard? They have already tacitly approved my school.
But even if it wouldn't, why should I agree to take money away from the public schools and give it to you for your choice?
Connie: You're not taking any money away from public schools. We're merely waking up the taxpayers to what their real education burden is.
Those opposed to vouchers are opposed because:
1) money is siphoned away from public schools;
2) they don't want their tax dollars supporting a religious school;
3) they don't want to subsidize the rich.
The claim that private schools are too expensive for the poor has been thoroughly debunked.
Lets look at 1). Say 100 kids are in public schools @ $8500 per kid and 10 are in private @ $0 per kid. After a $3500 voucher program is implemented, 10 kids flee the public school system, leaving 90 in public and 20 in private schools.
A) 100 * $8500 = $850,000
B) 90 * $8500 + 20 * $3500 = $835,000
Hardly a large sucking sound.
While the ratio of public to private enrollment (10:1) was a guess, the size of the voucher can be adjusted to minimize the impact on the state. Further, many of the voucher programs implemented in the USA have been geared towards those with a lower income.
As far as 2) is concerened, I can understand why one might be opposed to using public money for such a purpose. However, wouldn't you prefer that the ID nutcases go away? If you want to end the endless debates about which books the public school system ought to burn, give people a choice to get out.
As far as 3) is concerened, I'd rather give the poor an opportunity to make a different choice (at the risk of subsidizing a handful of rich kids) than give the poor no choice at all.
Tlaloc said: Actually a Median stat would be more favorable to your point, see it's like this the median value is the one that shows up the most out of the total set.
True, but median is not the correct statistic to use. As I said above, the weighted mean is the only staistic that has any real value (ie, total tuition dollars spent on private education divided by total private school enrollment).
Since public school is free how do you possibly imagine predatory pricing is going on? I'm curious...
Public school charges $0 per pupil, while the cost is ~$8500 per pupil. If WalMart came in and gave away widgets for free, putting all widget dealers within a 10 mile radius out of business, I think you'd complain.
Remember I don't have a school age kid any more, so you are taking my tax dollar and giving it to you. Why should I agree to that? You want private schools, your choice, why should I pay for it?
1) A little research (Friedman Foundation) will show that all voucher programs in the USA favor those with lesser means.
2) The voucher programs that have been implemented (proponents would call them vouchers-lite) have resulted in improvements in the public school system (ie, a little competition is a good thing).
My question to you, then, is why not improve public education? Why not expect more from your tax dollars?
Here is a rather comprehensive rebuttal of the lies that are spread by the anti-voucher crowd. If you do take the time to read it, notice that it is the TEACHERS UNIONS who are behind the mis-information campaign.
As for my math, A) shows that the cost to the state for the 100 students is $850,000; B) shows that the cost is about the same if you give vouchers to 20 students (the original 10 that were in private schools plus the 10 that left public schools) and have only 90 left in public schools.
BTW ... one of the voucher programs (I can't remember which ... maybe Milwuakee?) will not give vouchers to students that have already been in private school.
I probably like vouchers better than No Child Left Behind. I'm all for innovation, experimentation, localization, etc. NCLB is just the opposite of that.
And on this note of unanimous agreement, I will sign off...
Post a Comment