"Let's boil this down even further. The sense is that society should function more-or-less as a meritocracy, right? Smart people who make good decisions should tend to find themselves at the top and less-educated people who make bad decision should tend to find themselves at the bottom.
The question becomes -- which set of policies are more likely to make this actually happen? It's a fact that students in the top 25% of achievement but the lowest 25% of income graduate from college at the same rate as those in the top 25% of income but the lowest 25% of achievement. (Sean's post on the Topic)
If you want the meritocracy to work, you've got to provide people equal opportunity (to the extent possible) to allow it to happen. We don't have anything remotely close to equal opportunity today, and one party is determined to keep it that way by denying that structural barriers still exist and not taking actions designed to put people on a more equal footing.
Republicans want to gripe about taxes. For over 40 years following the end of WW2, the top marginal tax rate in this country was 50% or higher. Yet, somehow, wealthy people flourished -- and for the most part, so did the rest of society. Since we've slashed taxes on higher earners, we've only had one small period of sustained real wage growth for middle-class taxpayers (during the Clinton Administration). There's a reason that society is becoming more unequal, and it's not about the laziness or entitlement of the masses -- it's about the policy choices we have made as a country." SeanStarting at the end first, I think Liberals are trying to compare apples and watermelons with the top marginal tax rate discussions. These folks explain it in more detail, but in summary the USA was in great shape after WWII whereas most other countries were decimated. Of course we thrived. Whereas today we can not even get our own citizen's to "Buy American", transport is cheap, communication is instantaneous, money flows easily between countries and those other countries are highly competitive / hungry. Also, there is apparently some question how effective those rates were and the different gray areas. My point is I don't think anyone knows what would happen if we jacked up the marginal rates.
AEI Were Taxes Higher
Tax History Project
Forbes Higher Rates
Regarding the main point, "you've got to provide people equal opportunity". My question is how far do we take the government interfering in the lives of normal citizens?
Currently we spend ~$1 Trillion per year at the local, state and fed levels to help even the playing field. (ie welfare, medicaid, etc) And this does not count the almost $1 Trillion we spend on Public Education. So how much is enough?
And how do we get people / families who are trapped in generational cycle to break the bad habits of their parents, grand parents, neighbor kids, etc?
62 comments:
My question is how far do we take the government interfering in the lives of normal citizens?
To the extent they need things like medical care, roads, schools, and national defense, etc., I suppose.
--Hiram
Government should not be "providing" for individual needs of any kind. No welfare, no Medicaid, no nothing. Equal Opportunity means everything is there for you to acquire as you choose, through your own hard work or the charity of others. The true equal opportunity from government is supposed to be provided by giving, at public expense and to EVERY kid, the kind of education that will get them good-paying jobs and making them "productive members of society" "capable of participating in their own government." Anybody want to claim that government is doing that, today?
Government should not be "providing" for individual needs of any kind.
Why not? Can it provide general needs that don't benefit individuals? Is this the public policy debate we have had, should have now, or ever have in the future?
--Hiram
Our Constitution says government will "...provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity..."
They used different words for different things, and the only thing they are to "provide" are "for the common defense." They are to PROMOTE the GENERAL welfare, not provide it to individuals.
provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity...
I know. My question is can it do any of those things without depending on and benefiting individuals? Was this a trick they mastered in the 18th century which we have somehow forgotten since then?
--Hiram
"...provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity...
Speaking as a liberal, I am more interested in providing for the welfare of individuals who are in need, as opposed to the welfare of everyone generally. Does that put me in conflict with founders? Should we be passing out welfare to everyone?
--Hiram
Here is a link to the Oxford English Dictionary definition of welfare:
http://www.oed.com/view/Entry/226968?rskey=IwLjow&result=1#eid
Which definition demonstrates the change in understanding of the concept of "welfare" between the 18th century and now that is relevant to an understanding of the constitution?
--Hiram
Welfare Defined
"The state or condition of doing or being well; well-being, prosperity, success; the health, happiness, and fortunes of a person or group."
Given this definition and the term "general welfare" I don't think they were concerned that every citizen was prosperous and successful. Even back then they had to deal with the reality that people had different work ethics, levels of ambition, levels of risk tolerance, tendencies to become addicted, academic capabilities, skill capabilities, levels of self discipline, etc.
EPI College and Rank
Getting Low Income Students to College
Slate Why Poor Kids Drop Out
They never apply
What is Governments Role in Equal Opportunity? Free quality education -pre school through college. Also anti poverty progtams so kids have adequate food, shelter, and medical care.
"My question is can it do any of those things without depending on and benefiting individuals?"
It can, and must. Government cannot offer "equal opportunity" and then take from one to give to another. What it does must be an "equal opportunity" for all-- for the GENERAL welfare of the population. The critical item in this was supposed to be the public education system, and that is the great failing, in my opinion.
Laurie,
Unfortunately history has shown that government can bring the horse to water, but can not make it drink. As we have discussed over and over.
Or maybe it should be "the government can bring them to the welfare office, but can not get them to learn."
The more we spend, the more unlucky kids seem to be born. At least relative to the number of lucky kids.
I think welfare recipients are smarter than you think, and react to the incentives and choices-- opportunities-- open to them. Our government has the arrogance to believe they can countermand the laws of human nature.
We have more kids being born into poverty because we have more jobs that pay parents poverty wages.
Laurie,
Please remember that when I say "unlucky kid" I do not mean "poor kid". I have friends who were lucky poor kids. They had two parents who took great effort to teach their children the importance of manners, listening to Adults / Teachers, completing their homework, learning, working hard, etc.
Remember these... Link 1 Link 2
And learning them is free.
oh, I thought your comment about the welfare office implied you were referring to kids in poverty.
btw, you have not bothered to answer your own question; What is governments Role in Equal Opportunity?
"btw, you have not bothered to answer your own question; What is governments Role in Equal Opportunity?"
That's what I've been waiting for, too.
Not much time, but I will take a quick shot.
To ensure that minors are raised and taught well through Grade 12 / 18 years old. Protect them from irresponsible and neglectful adults. To do this seriously would require changes that put kids first, not money:
- Eliminate tenure and contract based compensation and job protections in the Education system. If you don't work and perform for the good of the kids, out you go.
- If you conceive a second child while on public assistance, you must abort within the first trimester or put the child up for adoption. Tie tubes if repeat offender.
- Offer free long term reversible birth control.
- Teachers grade Parents on attending conferences, ensuring homework is done, etc. Rewards and punishments tied to that grade.
The idea that the Education system and the Parents are not held accountable for their roles in the lives of our minors is incredible. Parents who have more kids than they can afford / care for, and Schools where the old folks instead of effective folks are paid the most absolutely amaze me.
Wow, John. If that's your take on the subject, allow me to vehemently disagree. If that is your definition, then I believe government should have ZERO role in "equal opportunity." I don't disagree that education reform is fundamental and currently government-controlled to DENY equal opportunity, nor do I disagree that the welfare system is likewise filled with perverse incentives and that same sort of obstacles to true equal opportunity. I simply find that your approach punishes people for taking the only "opportunities" government allows them. Government should be "secur[ing] the blessings of liberty," not restricting those liberties further.
"We have more kids being born into poverty because we have more jobs that pay parents poverty wages." -- Laurie
If these people HAD jobs it wouldn't be such a big problem. The problem is that too many "able-bodied" are consuming wealth and producing no wealth in return. It's simply a bad economic model as currently constructed.
Jerry,
I realize that you have a belief that foolish immature irresponsible people who have proven once or multiple times that they can not effectively manage abstinence or birth control should be free to screw up their children in a similar fashion.
I of course disagree, these "Parents" are barely mature and capable of caring for themselves let alone being entrusted to raise a child well without some strict over sight.
Food for Thought.
Single Parent Family Result
Absent Fathers
Of course the next question is being a Parent a Right or Privelege?
I think it should be a privelege. We wouldn't let Teachers, Nurses, Doctors, etc folks take care of minors, challenged adults or old folks, yet just because someone has sperm / ovums they are capable?
HP Privelege
S Law Right or Prvelege
SJ Right or Privelege
"Just 36% of food stamps and 32% of Temporary Assistance to Needy Families, or TANF, went to households led by workers."
That means 64% and 68% went to the unemployed.
SNAP and TANF, though, require some sort of other work-related activity (training, etc.) to remain eligible.
Laurie, did you notice how your article lumps in the Earned Income Tax Credit (which requires a job) with those on welfare, which supposedly does but in practice does not? The problem isn't that employers don't pay enough-- it is not government's job to tell employers they must pay some arbitrary amount-- but that a job doesn't seem to be a requirement to get a government check. I also don't think it is government's duty to provide every citizen with some guaranteed income level, but if they do it should be in some form that incentivizes or even requires work, like the EITC or a negative income tax.
John, I cannot believe what a low opinion you have of your fellow human beings. I've met a couple, not many, sure, that resemble what you describe but I have to ask: What "equal opportunity" did big government offer them to change what they have become? What public school did they attend that taught them the larger values of society, instilled some sense of self-worth and self-discipline to avoid unwed motherhood (and fatherhood), and provided them the education necessary to get a decent job and provide for themselves? What incentives or mandates, if any, did the welfare system offer that would create in them a work ethic, the need to acquire work skills, and the freedom to exercise that responsibility you say they have shirked? Why do you want to blame the victims?
Jerry,
For a Conservative who is supposed to encourage personal and parental responsibility, you sure are willing to let the irresponsible off the hook easily. And now you want the schools to serve as Parents...
"What public school did they attend that taught them the larger values of society, instilled some sense of self-worth and self-discipline to avoid unwed motherhood (and fatherhood), and provided them the education necessary to get a decent job and provide for themselves?"
I am always amazed that you think the schools with <16,000 hrs(13 yrs, 174 days, 7hrs/day)can make up for poor Parents and a tough society who have the kids >89,000 hrs. (18 yrs, 365 days, 16 hrs, -16000 hrs)
As for a low opinion, that would imply I blame them for what their irresponsible or incapable Parents did to them.
My 20 year old is smart, beautiful and in some ways very capable after decades of in depth talks and coaching with Mom and Dad. And yet in some ways she is still struggling to become a capable, responsible and independent adult.
I can not even imagine the challenges a 17 year old with questionable Parent role models and little money faces. And then a pregnancy occurs and this poorly supported immature young low skill/ low knowledge person is now a Parent.
And for some reason you think they should know what to do... What school their child should attend... I don't think lowly of them, I think they need a lot of "Parenting" themselves if their child is going to turn out better than them.
And if the young low self confidence Mom starts to be fulfilled by being a Baby Mama, things can not end well.
An interesting and relevent PBS Newshour piece.
According to this money is not the primary root cause of the low income college drop outs. It is a lack of parental support.
"I am always amazed that you think the schools with <16,000 hrs(13 yrs, 174 days, 7hrs/day)can make up for poor Parents and a tough society who have the kids >89,000 hrs. (18 yrs, 365 days, 16 hrs, -16000 hrs)"
And I am amazed that you think 16000 hrs of intense, structured "attention" doesn't matter. By that logic, we could let the kids stay home and watch TV, saving the taxpayers a 1/4 million dollars. Who knows, they might learn more, too.
"As for a low opinion, that would imply I blame them for what their irresponsible or incapable Parents did to them."
That was my point. Where did the Parents go to school, and what values and knowledge were inculcated in them that they would reasonably pass on to THEIR kids (delayed, of course, while they pursued education and career)?
Isn't the school where we break the poverty cycle? It is supposed to be.
"Isn't the school where we break the poverty cycle?"
I think that is a bit unrealistic. School is where children are sent to be taught reading, riting, rithmetic, science, etc.
Do you really want to make the schools responsible for the child's values? That sounds so unlike a Conservative.
And unfortunately it is nearly impossible to teach someone who does not value knowledge and is not wanting to learn.
16,000 hours does seem like a lot of time until you remember the the parents and their local society have the child ~5.6 hours for every hour that the school has them. Much of that being in the first 5 years when habits, beliefs, brain development, etc are occurring the fastest.
As for "I am amazed that you think 16000 hrs of intense, structured "attention" doesn't matter."
First, I think it is a stretch to say that having 20 to 40 kids in a classroom is very intense. (well maybe it is for the Teacher) Especially if the parents are indifferent to little Billy's grades / behavior.
And who here said "it doesn't matter". Even if 50% of the kids can not get up to full academic capability, the 50% with dedicated capable responsible parents are.
And yes the schools / unions have problems, however the low academic performance occurs in low income districts for a reason. There are more Parents in those areas who are unable or unwilling to be responsible Parents.
"16,000 hours does seem like a lot of time until you remember the parents and their local society have the child ~5.6 hours for every hour that the school has them."
So you're saying it takes a village?
Joel
"There are more Parents in those areas who are unable or unwilling to be responsible Parents."
There you go again. I will believe "unable," but that has to do with the choices that government puts before them. You cannot reasonably say "unwilling" until you put rational choices before them.
I'm also surprised by your callous disregard for 50% of children. We pay for schools to not only teach EVERY kid-- it's why we REQUIRE their attendance-- but with the reasonable expectation that the values of the society will be transmitted to them. Unless parents are actively hostile to that mission, the schools will succeed or fail by their own merit and effort. Right now far too many of them are failing far too many kids. They are creating another whole generation of "irresponsible parents" and it has to stop.
Joel,
Kind of... Please remember that I am a supporter of the HCZ philosophy.
One of their base requirements was that ~2/3 of the families in the Zone needed to be in the program to ensure the kid's did not fall backwards every time they left the building.
Another is that parents and students were both educated as soon as possible.
Finally, Teachers would strive for the good of the kids or they would be terminated. No Union silliness allowed.
Of course, this is too much for either the Left or Right adults to handle. They would rather argue and let the kids suffer.
Really? Now you really ARE sounding superior, to both Left and Right. I disagree that HCZ is "too much to handle" and must ask: What, exactly, prevents the public schools from doing exactly what HCZ does? They have far more than 2/3 of the kids in the district enrolled. Most of them offer community education, adult education, and social service referrals. They have more money. And are you really telling me that our public school teachers do NOT strive for the good of the kids??
Furthermore, let's agree that Harlem may be the epicenter of "unlucky kids," and yet HCZ is working wonders with a demographic that you (and the Leftist supporters of the public school status quo) seem to think we should give up on. The Right thinks these kids should be educated, as promised. That's the big reason there is an argument.
You, Mr. Anti-Headstart / ECFE wonders why I think the Conservatives would fight this?
Did you even study the HCZ programs? Here is a statement that is at the core of their success.
"The first years of life are crucial to building a strong foundation for educational success. That’s why we continually strive to deepen and strengthen our work with parents and children during these key years."
And then there is this...
"We take a holistic approach to supporting the Harlem community. Our Community Centers strive to provide children – and adults – with something very important: a safe place to learn, play, and grow."
and...
"Since the 1970s, the obesity rate among America’s children has tripled. In Harlem, more than two-thirds of residents are overweight or obese. Our goal is to combat obesity in our community and help all our children grow up to become healthy, productive adults."
If the Liberals proposed this level of governmental familial support, I could already hear the Conservatives groan.
Just curious. Do you have a source for this statement?
"They have more money."
Because I have no idea what they spend.
"Just curious. Do you have a source for this statement?"
I looked over the HCZ website and found they get the most from private (no doubt conservative) sources. Easy enough to compare that with the per pupil spent in NYC schools. Been a while since I looked at it, though.
I still don't know who spends what per child / family,or if the HCZ takes on special needs kids or leaves them to the publics. I am thinking more research is needed.
As for Donors
"You, Mr. Anti-Headstart / ECFE wonders why I think the Conservatives would fight this?"
Yes, it seems incongruous, but make this one distinction and it makes sense. HCZ WORKS, and it is not a government-run operation. I opposed mandatory public pre-school in MN (Dayton's wish list) because I cannot imagine that giving the public schools MORE to do when they are already failing in their primary mission makes no sense at all. PRIVATE or choice pre-schools are very effective and cost a lot less. That's why Republicans in the Legislature voted to spend more on "support" (you can't say "voucher") of these programs.
Looks like their spend comes to between $4-$8K per person, depending on whether you count just kids or not. The donor list looks pretty Wall-Street heavy.
http://wac.adef.edgecastcdn.net/80ADEF/hcz.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/04/biennial-2012-13LO-resSingles.pdf
According to Census Data, New York spends $19,076 each year per student.
WAC HCZ
DR HCZ Tell the Truth
NYT HCZ Challenges
Brookings HCZ
Without reading through all of that, I ask again: What is that HCZ does that could NOT be done by the public schools plus the current social services system?
I do not know... My guess is it has do with a nasty mix of government disfunction, union self interests, Conservatives afraid to let the government challenge poor parents, Conservatives afraid that the Liberals are working to brainwash young people, likely law suits, funding constraints, special ed laws, etc.
You know... The normal stuff that keeps unlucky kids unlucky.
Let us say you are correct, but let me note the common thread: GOVERNMENT dysfunction (as in unable to organize a one-car funeral), GOVERNMENT employee union self-interest, ... GOVERNMENT challenging poor parents by denying them choices, GOVERNMENT schools brainwashing children, GOVERNMENT funding constraints (as to HOW the vast OVERspending is spent), and GOVERNMENT special ed laws. These all stem from the commonly known "root causes" of GOVERNMENT inertia, throwing money at problems, microMISmanagement and over-regulation, one-size-fits-all policies, byzantine complexity, and plain old ignorance, not to mention the rewards of spending money to perpetuate problems rather than solving them.
Now, where do you think we should start to FIX this situation, because it is intolerable that so many people are DENIED access to equal opportunity by the government supposed to help them get it?
Hint: It's not with the parents.
Sorry to disagree.
I agree that the government and unions could make it easier, however the buck stops with the Parents. They chose to have / keep the child(ren). They are responsible to ensure their children grow up to be responsible prepared members of society by age 19...
Thank you for throwing in the usual Conservative...
"GOVERNMENT schools brainwashing children"
It helped reinforce my point.
By the way, Special Ed laws came from the courts / constitution for the most part.
Don't disagree; just explain it to me, because there is no way I can come to your POV without that.
OK, parents are ultimately responsible for the care and education of their children. BUT... government REQUIRES that those children attend school and offers "free" education, in essence assuming (or taking away) that responsibility. Parents are NOT and cannot be responsible for giving their kids equal opportunity and are likely the biggest obstacles to it, but the government schools supposedly exist to make that opportunity available to everybody. And lastly, if government and unions /could/ "make it easier" to access that education and the opportunity it brings, WHY DON'T THEY DO IT??!
I used your "loaded word" "brainwashing" but the fact remains that GOVERNMENT largely controls not only the curriculum but the methodology of teaching these days, and "local control" has devolved into a platitudinous myth. Have you looked at the new Common Core standards on history, or the old Minnesota state standards on history? Absolutely appalling, yet those who object are simply ignored and the kids get what is mandated.
You are right, that the Special Ed laws are "the law of the land," but that doesn't make them right or smart or a solution of the problem, and it certainly doesn't mean that, whatever the goals of the law are, the detailed regulations and implementations actually serve those goals. They don't even fund it. Since the law was passed, we have had the number and percent of SE students increase by anywhere from 2 to 9 times, depending on disability. Part of that is increasing recognition of specific disorders, and part of it, IMHO, is the fact that there is money in it. Reform (of GOVERNMENT) is needed so that "equal opportunity" for some does not come at the expense of others.
From my perspective, offering a free service that helps Parents ensure their children grow up to be responsible prepared members of society by age 19 in no way "assumes or takes away" the Parent's responsibility.
The Teachers I had conferences with were very happy to meet with us and help us to ensure our children were on track. When talking to many Teachers over the years, they were often disappointed that the Parents of the children who needed the most help would rarely come to conferences or contact them.
I have known Parents that shared your opinion, their children struggled and they would always complain that school was supposed be responsible for their children. Yet the Parents would avoid talking to the Teachers, not help the kids with homework, not take action on the advice from the school staff, etc. Those were truly unlucky kids with parents who had poor motivation, little knowledge, little self discipline, etc.
Local control is over rated. We live in a intensely globally competitive world. ~50 people in Burnsville are in no way capable of creating a world class curriculum, especially when they want to spin it to their personal biases / beliefs. And we do not need 5,000 such groups across the USA expending effort to create 5,000 different variants of their own pet curriculum. Especially when familes and children move often in our fast paced modern world.
CC Pro Con
And when push comes to shove. What matters is how the Teacher interprets the needs and style of each student and communicates the selected curriculum and methods in a way the child will understand and remember. Often the Teachers taught my daughters different methods than the examples in the books. Then I would be in trouble for trying to tutor them from the book. "Daddy... That is not how the Teacher did it!!! I am going to go ask a friend !!!"
Maybe someday we as a society will figure out how to deal with the special ed issue.
By the way, another likely reason for increasing special ed numbers. Technology let's us deliver or keep alive many many children who would have died decades ago. And women/ men are having kids much later in life.
about " Special Ed laws came from the courts / constitution for the most part."
Special ed laws came from congress in 1975, for the most part. IDEA is the big one and is mostly responsible for the large increase in the sped population.
The History of Special Education in the United States
"offering a free service ... in no way "assumes or takes away" the Parent's responsibility."
Ah, but this free service is not OFFERED, it is MANDATED. The only way parents become responsible under the law is if they refuse the free service and spend additional money to educate the kid some other way. Those who can afford the choice, get the choice, and those that can't are accused of being irresponsible, because they followed the law.
"And when push comes to shove. What matters is how the Teacher interprets the needs and style of each student and communicates the selected curriculum and methods in a way the child will understand and remember."
Yes, and so when the common curriculum becomes rigid enough, and the common pedagogical methodology gets "baked in" to the instructional materials and tests, then the essential ability of the teacher to adapt the material to each child, or even each class, simply disappears. Remember the disaster that was and is "New math," followed by "the new, new math," followed by "Chicago math" and now "Common Core math"? Every time there is a switch, I see teachers and kids confused by the new methodology, and in every case I find that the kids CAN learn the same math concepts by just coming at it another way, something the teachers SHOULD be allowed and enabled to do.
I don't object to Common Core in concept. The notion of standardizing what every kid in the country should be learning in a certain grade is certainly part of equal opportunity, as well as a substantial savings in the cost of textbooks, curriculum development and administration. The problem comes when that standardization extends to the teaching methods and tests, essentially cutting the teacher "out of the loop" of deciding how to teach each child. That's exactly wrong, and probably why our inner city schools fail while charter/private schools can succeed.
"... another likely reason for increasing special ed numbers. Technology let's us deliver or keep alive many many children who would have died decades ago."
Actually, the types of handicaps you're referring to are a small fraction of special ed cases. The largest increase has been in behavioral problems, including ADHD, and "perceptual problems" like ADD. Seems to me that we should be attacking the SE problem the same way we do the education gaps of minorities, by tailoring WHAT we do with each student to the most effective combination of instructional goals and tactics.
Probably not directly on topic, but I found this item striking. Why isn't this simple success replicable across the country?
http://dailysignal.com/2015/08/25/heres-how-hurricane-katrina-changed-schools-in-new-orleans/?utm_source=heritagefoundation&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=morningbell&mkt_tok=3RkMMJWWfF9wsRohv6zMZKXonjHpfsX56uwpW6OxlMI%2F0ER3fOvrPUfGjI4ATMRkM6%2BTFAwTG5toziV8R7jHKM1t0sEQWBHm
Post a Comment