What do the Haves owe the Have-Nots?

“Different people have different likes when it comes to job styles, and it's been my personal experiences that teaching attracts a certain type of person; usually not the go-go-go competition-competition type. Some people might fear that rewarding teachers based upon results could change their job into the type of job they never wanted to have.

That's not to say that their preferences are more important than giving the best education possible to the students, just that that info may be useful to understand the position of the teaching unions.
Mike R”
##
Yep, this precisely matches my sense of teachers. Considering that I am almost pitifully grateful to some of the teachers I’ve had over the course of my life, I also feel that they are less competitive than the average person. All I care about is their ability to function so as to transmit data, experience, and maturity to students. And the fact that the best and worst teachers get paid about the same drives me nuts.

So I agree about the teacher’s unions being problematic. Of course, being a balance freak, I’d feel obligated to point out that the management structure is likely to be just as big a problem.

Here’s another underyling problem I have. And this is PURE thought experiment. Remember my position that

1) I see Liberals being more Nurture over Nature, and Conservatives more Nature over Nurture?
2)Combine this with the natural human tendency to selfishness (present in all human beings, regardless of political orientation) and 3) the tendency of people to try to justify their actions to themselves and others. (Prime example: slavery. The institution per se was less ruinous than the justifications. Rather than saying “we did this to you because we could” it was “we did this to you because you are natural slaves, and it’s GOOD for you.” That was hellaceously more poisonous, and the repercussions lasted for generations. They’re still operating.)

Now remember: I’m not saying the following is true. I’m saying that it is an honest representation of the way I think, presented for your amusement.
##

All right. Now, since the majority of the people I’ve heard promoting Voucher programs are Conservative in general politics, I am automatically looking for traces of the Nature before Nurture position. I ask myself: why might someone who believes that some groups defined by race or ethnicity to be superior or inferior to others promote such an idea? Since it feels to me that Conservatives are consistently pushing for lower taxes, reduced “entitlements” and smaller centralized government, if every human being automatically tries to maximize advantage to whatever they perceive “their” social class to be, wouldn’t it be reasonable that there would be a core of Americans who believe that:
1) Some people are more educable than others.
2) Whites happen to be better at this.
3) Blacks (my own personal interest is showing here) are worse at this.
4) That innate capacity is the hidden factor in the failure of inner-city schools, the “elephant in the living room” that no one has the courage to talk about.

Now, according to things I’ve said, where do I think you will find the majority of people who think this way? On the Right. And if you thought this way, and were in favor of vouchers, is the real point to equalize the performance of these children? How could that be true if you don’t believe that they are intrinsically capable of parity?

Now, the majority of Conservatives I’ve met seem to believe in the equality of human beings…but I have to admit that it seems that they have to work to remind themselves of their position. They tend to shade toward the Republic aspect of the “Democratic republic” equation—that some are more suited to make decisions than others.

In truth, I think anyone who has been in the world will notice that, indeed, some people are more capable than others. The question is what you think is responsible for this—in individuals, or in groups. And we can take the difference between the Right and Left in this regard to be however small a percentage tendency that you wish—but I do feel that I detect it, and have in countless conversations, articles, and speeches over the years.

So…no one I’ve heard speaking of Vouchers seems to believe that this will be MORE expensive than the current system. So the natural conclusion is to think that people think it will be less of a tax burden.

The more money you have, the less dependent you are on public education, at least for your own kids. And the more the average person will think it a burden to pay for services you yourself don’t need. But almost NO ONE will come straight out and say “I don’t give a crap about other people—I’ve got mine and I’m keeping it.” Even really mean people will justify their greed.

So I see a situation where part of the group promoting vouchers will be people who:
1) Believe Government should do as little as possible
2) Taxes should be non-existent
3) Blacks have less innate capacity, and this genetic roadblock is actually responsible for the failure of inner-city schools.

If this group is only 5% of the Right (let’s say. And remember that I believe that there are also equally poisonous attitudes on the Left. They just don’t hit my personal buttons in quite the same way) can you detect their rhetoric? Can you hear the code words when they speak publicly?

Remember, my base contention is that the average person has a 5-15% prejudicial affinity for (and exalted opinion of) “their” group, and that 5-15% of people have a seriously stronger affinity that might be labeled “prejudiced” or “bigoted.” Where is their interest in all of this? What tent are they in?

Now, please remember that I clearly labeled this my own personal speculation, with the understanding that NONE of this means that the Voucher concept can’t work, or that the majority of its adherents have anything other than positive intentions. It means that these are the reasons that the hair on the back of my neck stands up:
1) I see no reason to believe that commercial interests are more ethical or effective in serving the disadvantaged. This simply doesn’t match the shoddy services and predatory lending practices I’ve seen all my life.
2) People who seem to be prone to “us-themism” in one arena are, in my opinion, more likely to make the same kinds of judgments in others. Racism is so un-PC that no one this side of David Duke will cop to it publicly. But its still there, still virulent.
3) The rich will tend to side with the rich, the poor with the poor. Does this mean that, considering my background, I would take a position disadvantageous to the wealthy? And if so, would this be fair? Well, the way I look at it is that a more basic level of Maslow’s Hierarchy trumps a higher level. Survival trumps self-expression. If a wealthy person says that they have no obligation to pay taxes to provide health care or other entitlements, I can get where they’re coming from. But I look at the most stable and healthy societies as those in which everyone feels that there is an investment in the health of said society. And a wealthy person who can’t purchase a Picasso is not, in my mind, as disadvantaged as a poor one who can’t get medical care for their child. The two positions are not equivalent, in my mind. Note that it is this kind of reasoning that leads me to support Israel—not that the Palestinians are not getting the short end of the stick, but that the Israelis, as Jews, have only that one little piece of land. Whereas the Palestinians, as Muslims, have a vastly larger selection of places to live where they are the majority. To deny the Jews Israel is almost like saying “I don’t care if you live or die.” And to say that is to give permission to exit the community of civilized nations, and do whatever the hell you want.

How does this play out in life? I think that we will have evolved to the next level as a society when we see we can afford to offer every citizen the level of medical care, education and basic amenities that they would get in a state prison. Since all they have to do to get it is break your head, isn't it best to cover these basic necessities? I think that we all have a capacity for evil and violence. Love and nurturance early in life helps prevent sociopathic behavior. On the societal level, showing "Lifestyles of the rich" while claiming we can't afford school lunch programs fosters a sense than those who benefit most from our society just don't give a damn. And if they don't, what is the motivation for reciprocal courtesy? Don't most people obey the law because they believe it to be in their own self-interest? If you think the deck is stacked, don't you leave the game or kick the table over? I have NEVER seen human beings behave in any other way.

##

The natural human tendency to think that “your” group is better, to hold onto everything you can get, and to try to make selfishness look like enlightenment, can cloud the water.

I believe that the people writing on this topic on this blog are being honest about their position. That they believe that Vouchers will be the best for the children, and for society. I freely offer that.

But I started life hearing politicians--and the general public-- openly taking racist positions, and being driven slowly underground. And I sure as hell don’t think people don’t think that way anymore. They just don’t TALK that way. And I know I’m hypersensitive.

My fear: I see a situation where Vouchers are distributed, funded with tax dollars. Followed by the natural tendency of money and services to be superior in advantaged neighborhoods. And as for people who claim that poor people will shuttle their kids around to the better schools…well, to put it bluntly, if they were that savvy, they wouldn’t be likely to be poor. That’s kind of like saying that there are tax breaks for the poor written into the codes…but they’re written in such legalese that your chances of finding them without an accounting degree are pretty slim. Down the road, as the march toward privatization, smaller government and lower taxes increases, what do I fear? The natural human tendency toward “I want to keep as much of what I have as I can” kicks in, and the tax money allotted for vouchers is nibbled away. I mean, rich people didn’t need it in the first place, right? And excuse me for being naïve, but are there many poor people writing and passing laws?

So…the question of Privatization versus State-run schools will really only be settled in a generation or so. And if in the process of that, the school system, starved of a larger chunk of its income, buckles and snaps, and down the road someone says: “oops! This isn’t working!” the gap between the have’s and have-nots will have widened dramatically. And it will be terribly difficult to build the public schools back up again.

And meanwhile, it looks an awful lot as if the other countries out-competing us are using public education just fine. And the majority of the successful human beings I’ve known came out of public education. And yes, private schools DO provide extra value—that’s why people are willing to pay the extra money. But would they provide it if they weren’t operating as a “value added” commodity? That I don’t know.

Smelling rancid milk in inner-city supermarkets REALLY makes me doubt it, though.
##
In my mind, what I WOULD like to see is a few towns in each state trying Vouchers. Wait ten years. See what happens. If it works, expand the program. Otherwise, if you want to increase the efficiency of schools, you need to
1) Create a metric to measure the efficiency of schools, programs, and individual teachers.
2) See which schools, systems, and teachers are “best.”
3) Specifically contrast them with the “worst” to isolate the attitudes, strategies and actions that produce the positive results.
4) Get the creators of these programs, the administrators of the systems, and the best teachers together to synthesize their approach into something that can be replicated.
5) Implement this.

Now, given such a metric, it would be easy to determine, for instance, if private schools are better than public, religious than secular, small than large, etc. Does money make a difference? Personal philosophy?


Now, I openly admit that my position is that environment is the critical factor in the non-performance of inner city schools. But I also believe that a big chunk of that environment has to do with parents who don’t provide a healthy, safe, emotionally balanced situation at home. Who feed their kids crap, don’t provide a two-parent household, don’t read, and program their children with buggy social software.

Do the Haves have responsibility to the Have-Nots? I think most people would say yes, within limits. But grasp that if you secretly believe that minorities simply aren’t as capable as whites, that the key strategy would be to stop “wasting” money on programs to achieve the “impossible.” You probably wouldn’t phrase it that way, but isn’t that what you’d do?