McWhorter and Loury Strike Back

[Bloggingheads]

[TwinSwords]

Welcome back, gentlemen!

What a great way to start a week: With Glenn and John. I haven't watched this one, yet, but I have to say to both of our hosts: Thank you for stopping by and sharing your perspectives with us.

[bkjazfan]

I haven't watched it yet but I will shortly. I would like to comment on the Obama's not sending thier daughters to public school. From what I gather when they were in Chicago they didn't attend them there either.

I don't think it's fair to single them out on this. Democratic politicians as a rule support public schools. However, many of them don't send their children to them. There is also a propensity amongst teachers of all stripes to send their kids to private schools. It's too easy to call them hypocrits and I will not do that. However, I wish they would say why they choose private over public.

On a personal basis my daughter went to public schools thru the 8th grade. My ex, a lifelong Catholic, sent her to a parochial school for her senior years. She blossomed at the Catholic high school.

My family as well as all of my direct relatives attended the Los Angleles Unified School District. Of course, they aren't what they used to be.

The problems in many of the public schools are enormous and I for one am clueless on what to do to solve them. I have a feeling most pols, dems and repubs, are clueless, too.

John

[ogieogie]

I wonder how much input the Secret Service had into the choice of schools for the Obama children. I'm not sure we can pass judgment on the choice without knowing all the factors that went into it.

[bjkeefe]

Originally Posted by ogieogie

I wonder how much input the Secret Service had into the choice of schools for the Obama children. I'm not sure we can pass judgment on the choice without knowing all the factors that went into it.

That same thought has occurred to me, too, and also from the perspective of every other kid in the school. I have the feeling Sidwell Friends is much more used to, and better equipped to deal with, the security requirements of children of VIPs and minimizing the impact these requirements have on the rest of the students.

[grits-n-gravy]

Originally Posted by bkjazfan

I would like to comment on the Obama's not sending thier daughters to public school. From what I gather when they were in Chicago they didn't attend them there either.

I don't think it's fair to single them out on this. Democratic politicians as a rule support public schools. However, many of them don't send their children to them. There is also a propensity amongst teachers of all stripes to send their kids to private schools. It's too easy to call them hypocrits and I will not do that. However, I wish they would say why they choose private over public.

I also don't have any problem with the Obamas sending their kids to private school per se. But it does smack of just a little hypocrisy for the first lady to hail the virtues of a public school education while sending their own kids to a private school, and not just any old private school. The only point Glenn made was that if people, like John, want to imbue Obama's victory with so much racial significance and symbolism then they should take note of the message he and his wife are sending when they choose an exclusive private school for their children over a public school or even home schooling for that matter.

[graz]

Originally Posted by grits-n-gravy

I also don't have any problem with the Obamas sending their kids to private school per se. But it does smack of just a little hypocrisy for the first lady to hail the virtues of a public school education while sending their own kids to a private school, and not just any old private school. The only point Glenn made was that if people, like John, want to imbue Obama's victory with so much racial significance and symbolism then they should take note of the message he and his wife are sending when they choose an exclusive private school for their children over a public school or even home schooling for that matter.

As President, Obama can shape public school policy. As parents they have an obligation to the safety and well being of their children. Why would you assume that they didn't "take note" of the symbolism. In my estimation they are exercising a private realm choice, even if it's in public purview. The trade-off of loss of privacy shouldn't preclude a wise choice to avoid shitty D.C. schools.

[grits-n-gravy]

Originally Posted by graz

As President, Obama can shape public school policy. As parents they have an obligation to the safety and well being of their children. Why would you assume that they didn't "take note" of the symbolism. In my estimation they are exercising a private realm choice, even if it's in public purview. The trade-off of loss of privacy shouldn't preclude a wise choice to avoid shitty D.C. schools.

I haven't assumed anything. Just go back and listen to John's rambling response to Glenn's commentary on BHO/MLK comparisons. He obviously doesn't take note of the symbolism in Obama sending his kids to elite prep schools and how that contradicts the symbolism of equal opportunity in Obama's rise to the presidency.

Furthermore, why do you (and John for that matter) assume that the only public school choice available to Sasha and Malia is "shitty D.C. schools"?

[graz]

Originally Posted by grits-n-gravy

I haven't assumed anything. Just go back and listen to John's rambling response to Glenn's commentary on BHO/MLK comparisons. He obviously doesn't take note of the symbolism in Obama sending his kids to elite prep schools and how that contradicts the symbolism of equal opportunity in Obama's rise to the presidency.

Furthermore, why do you (and John for that matter) assume that the only public school choice available to Sasha and Malia is "shitty D.C. schools"?

Because it furthers my premise. I consider the choice to be outside of the legitimate concerns for my assessment of our President. I would speculate, as others did, that security issues were paramount in the choice.
As misinformed as we might be about the quality of D.C. schools. I am under the impression or prejudice that those schools are overpopulated, violent and dysfunctional. Sorry, no studies to cite - just based on reading and listening. I also don't believe that John's point about reading methodology is the complete basis for his criticism.

To echo Glenn's point. Obama isn't as important a symbol now, as he was when. He would choose the girl's school based on personal and practical needs - not for symbolism.

[TwinSwords]

There is nothing hypocritical about the Obamas sending their children to a private school. If the Obamas had taken the position that every child should be forced into public schools, you would have a point. But of course, they never took that position, so they aren't hypocrites. The Obamas, like the vast majority of Americans, simply support a public education system that provides a baseline of quality schools available free to every American. No suggestion has been made by the Obamas or anyone else that public schools be the only option. Parents who have a preference for alternatives are free to pursue them. Many do.

So what, exactly, is your point? I'm sure it's not that the government should subsidize the cost of private school education for every American. I doubt you favor the abolition of public schools. And I doubt you believe the Obamas should be forced to send their own children to public schools merely because they support public education.

It's worth noting that the overwhelming majority of Republicans support public education. How come no one ever calls Republican politicians hypocritical for sending their own children to private school. Besides the fact that it makes no sense and is untrue, I mean?

[grits-n-gravy]

Originally Posted by TwinSwords

There is nothing hypocritical about the Obamas sending their children to a private school. If the Obamas had taken the position that every child should be forced into public schools, you would have a point. But of course, they never took that position, so they aren't hypocrites.

Twin,

I don't think they're hypocrites. But if Michelle Obama is going to use herself as a poster child for what a quality public school education can produce, why dilute the force of her message by sending her kids to an elite prep school? I mean, if I lobbied you about the great taste of Dr. Pepper yet drank Pepsi instead most people might raise an eyebrow at that at the very least.

The point Glenn was making is that it is superficial to dwell on the racial symbolism of Obama presidency without at the same time questioning the symbolism of some of his decisions.

[graz]

Originally Posted by grits-n-gravy

Twin,

1-I don't think they're hypocrites. But if Michelle Obama is going to use herself as a poster child for what a quality public school education can produce, why dilute the force of her message by sending her kids to an elite prep school?



2-The point Glenn was making is that it is superficial to dwell on the racial symbolism of Obama presidency without at the same time questioning the symbolism of some of his decisions.

1-That was obviously for the purpose of campaigning... Imagine John McCain running for office without mentioning his P.O.W. experience. Mission accomplished - what more proof do you need of her bona fides regarding the value of public education?

2-No, Glenn made clear that he believes it is always a mistake to dwell on the surfaces of race as opposed to character and results.

[grits-n-gravy]

Originally Posted by graz

1-That was obviously for the purpose of campaigning... Imagine John McCain running for office without mentioning his P.O.W. experience. Mission accomplished - what more proof do you need of her bona fides regarding the value of public education?

The election is over but the campaigning continues . . .

You must have noticed her high profile appearances at some public schools recently? What about her appearances in support of Dept. of Ed. designee?

2-No, Glenn made clear that he believes it is always a mistake to dwell on the surfaces of race as opposed to character and results.

That part wasn't clear to me. But you're entitled to your opinion.

[uncle ebeneezer]

But if Michelle Obama is going to use herself as a poster child for what a quality public school education can produce, why dilute the force of her message by sending her kids to an elite prep school?

Because the situations are totally different. Michelle's dad was not the President of the United States. Just from a security standpoint I would guess that private schools are far more approrpiate for children who are likely to attract all kinds of (often negative or threatening attention.) Choosing to put their children in a private school, doesn't distill the achievement of Michelle Obama via public schooling in the least. Any more so than President Obama using a limousine distills his belief in public transit. It's just the reality of their options.

Schooling doesn't have to always fall into black and white private/public dichotomy. The truth of the matter is that both are important. Wanting to make public schools better doesn't mean outlawing private schools.

Incidentally, I'm far more concerned about this:
http://yglesias.thinkprogress.org/ar..._education.php

as it would pertain to public schooling.

[grits-n-gravy]

Originally Posted by uncle ebeneezer

Because the situations are totally different. Michelle's dad was not the President of the United States.

True. However, Sasha & Malia's dad wasn't the president 3 or 4 years ago when they were enrolled in a Chicago private school.

I'm not knocking their decision to opt for private school; I went to Catholic school for grades 9-12. (BTW, my parents paid about $900/yr tuition plus books in the late 70s; now that same school I attended cost about 25-30k!) But given where the Obama's have chosen to school their kids, shouldn't they (the Obamas) be strong supporters of vouchers, at least in principle, so that socio-economically disadvantaged parents can have more choices?

Correction

I rechecked the tuition at my high school and discovered my number is way off. I must of have been thinking of another Catholic school in the area that actually costs around 25k. The tuition cost today at my old high school is roughly $9,000/yr plus books, uniforms, and transportation.

[claymisher]

Originally Posted by grits-n-gravy

True. However, Sasha & Malia's dad wasn't the president 3 or 4 years ago when they were enrolled in a Chicago private school.

I'm not knocking their decision to opt for private school; I went to Catholic school for grades 9-12. (BTW, my parents paid about $900/yr tuition plus books in the late 70s; now that same school I attended cost about 25-30k!) But given where the Obama's have chosen to school their kids, shouldn't they (the Obamas) be strong supporters of vouchers, at least in principle, so that socio-economically disadvantaged parents can have more choices?

He worked for the U of Chicago and it was their lab school so he got a good deal.

Who doesn't like a bargain shopper?

[Lemon Sorbet]

Originally Posted by grits-n-gravy

Twin,

I don't think they're hypocrites. But if Michelle Obama is going to use herself as a poster child for what a quality public school education can produce, why dilute the force of her message by sending her kids to an elite prep school?

Grits, my understanding on the feelings of proponents of public eduction is thus: American public eduction system is awesome, but we've let it decline and we've got to get it back. Meanwhile, I cannot send my own child to this declined institution but we've got to work actively right now to set it right again.

Is there an inherent hypocrisy there? Maybe there is, I don't know, but I don't see it.

[grits-n-gravy]

Originally Posted by Lemon Sorbet

Grits, my understanding on the feelings of proponents of public eduction is thus: American public eduction system is awesome, but we've let it decline and we've got to get it back. Meanwhile, I cannot send my own child to this declined institution but we've got to work actively right now to set it right again.

Is there an inherent hypocrisy there? Maybe there is, I don't know, but I don't see it.

The public school system in this country varies in quality from state to state, county to county, district to district, and school to school. The decline is by no means uniform. It may not be inherent hypocrisy for the Obamas to send their children to an elite, private school but neither is it leading by example.

[Lemon Sorbet]

Originally Posted by grits-n-gravy

The public school system in this country varies in quality from state to state, county to county, district to district, and school to school. The decline is by no means uniform. It may not be inherent hypocrisy for the Obamas to send their children to an elite, private school but neither is it leading by example.

I get what you're saying, so by extension I get what Glenn Loury is saying. I agree that it was not hypocrisy but, yes, that would have been SOMETHING, had they decided on a public school.

[DoctorMoney]

Originally Posted by grits-n-gravy

The public school system in this country varies in quality from state to state, county to county, district to district, and school to school. The decline is by no means uniform. It may not be inherent hypocrisy for the Obamas to send their children to an elite, private school but neither is it leading by example.

Are they advocating that more people should send their kids to public schools?

Or are they advocating for better public schools.

The only way for them to lead by example would be to vote for people who want to improve the school system and increase funding. Which I'm assuming they do, rather aggressively.

[grits-n-gravy]

Originally Posted by DoctorMoney

Are they advocating that more people should send their kids to public schools?

Or are they advocating for better public schools.

It's not an either or proposition. Since Obama is on record as opposing vouchers, one might conclude that they are advocating more people should keep their kids in public schools. He's also on record as supporting public funded charter schools so you can say they advocate better public schools. Take your pick.

The only way for them to lead by example would be to vote for people who want to improve the school system and increase funding. Which I'm assuming they do, rather aggressively.

No, that's not the only way, nor is it the most effective way. The most effective way would be to enroll your kids in a first rate public school and use the bully pulpit to advocate better public schools. Having said that, the most effective way is not always the most feasible and realistic way.

[claymisher]

Damn, Glenn is cranky. Cranky is boring. Anybody can do cranky. I could do cranky.

I stopped at about 13 minutes.

[TwinSwords]

Originally Posted by grits-n-gravy

The public school system in this country varies in quality from state to state, county to county, district to district, and school to school. The decline is by no means uniform. It may not be inherent hypocrisy for the Obamas to send their children to an elite, private school but neither is it leading by example.

On this issue, I don't see the importance of leading by example. What would be the point of that? Why should the Obamas be concerned with persauding people to choose public education?

It's as if the Obama's came out in favor of clean tap water availble to the communities of America, and were called hypocrits because they drink bottled water. Who cares if they drink bottled water? What the Obamas personally consume is irrelevant. The far more important consideration is the principle that our nation's water supplies should be free of contamination.

WRT public schools, what matters is that the Obamas support robust, healthy public education that is available to every American child. That's the promise of public education, and it comes with no requirement that any given family choose to take advantage of it. It has been part of the understanding since the beginning that alternatives are available to those who want them.

[AemJeff]

Originally Posted by TwinSwords

On this issue, I don't see the importance of leading by example. What would be the point of that?

And further, why should those little girls' lives be used that way? The first thing the Obamas need to consider here is the welfare of their kids, not how the choice of venue for their education will affect public debate. A decision to subordinate the needs of their children to symbolic niceties would be clearly wrong, I think.

That's regardless of whether they choose public or private institutions.

[Lemon Sorbet]

Originally Posted by AemJeff

And further, why should those little girls' lives be used that way?

This makes me think about, in light of the subject matter of this vlog, the parents of those kids who went through the gaunlet of violence to be the first blacks kids in the newly integrated schools of the South. Who would wish that upon their child? Everytime I see that footage I think most about the fortitude of the parents that made them in essence sacrifice their child for the cause. I cannot imagine the searing sorrow and pain that they must have gone through in making that decision and watching it unfold, and the paralyzing fear of those poor kids. How do you explain to a 15 year old what's going to happen to you tomorrow and why you have to do it?

Once again, I cannot believe that Glenn Loury is decrying the sentimentality.

[AemJeff]

Originally Posted by Lemon Sorbet

This makes me think about, in light of the subject matter of this vlog, the parents of those kids who went through the gaunlet of violence to be the first blacks kids in the newly integrated schools of the South. Who would wish that upon their child? Everytime I see that footage I think most about the fortitude of the parents that made them in essence sacrifice their child for the cause. I cannot imagine the searing sorrow and pain that they must have gone through in making that decision and watching it unfold, and the paralyzing fear of those poor kids. How do you explain to a 15 year old what's going to happen to you tomorrow and why you have to do it?

Once again, I cannot believe that Glenn Loury is decrying the sentimentality.

I hear what you're saying. I don't fully subscribe to the analogy, though. If schools were ever going to integrated, then somebody had to be first, it was unavoidable. And the huge potential benefit to the pioneers in the form of attendance at what was often going to be a much higher quality institution was an offset to the obvious downsides. (Was it worth it for those first kids? I'm guessing on balance, yes - though obviously everyone has their own story to tell.) There's no such dilemma facing the Obamas.

[Lemon Sorbet]

Originally Posted by AemJeff

I don't fully subscribe to the analogy, though.

Oh I agree. It was more of a comment on Glenn's tirade against what I think he thinks is a prevailing culture of condescending sentimentality. There is a reason why people evoke MLK, history, and get teary eyed. That is not taking anything away from the reality of the presidency faced by Obama.

[Ray]

Originally Posted by TwinSwords

Why should the Obamas be concerned with persuading people to choose public education?

You're right. They shouldn't--and the reason why makes me think either I'm missing something here or a whole lot of other people are: public school is for people who don't have the choice to send their kids to private school.

Public school is for people who can't afford to pay private school tuition, but can afford to pay their taxes (and maybe not even that).

The leadership by example argument makes no sense. Most people don't have the ability to follow the Obama's example. The argument should be that Obama's sending his daughters to private school indicates that he doesn't give a fuck about the condition of the American public school system.

But, then, that's kind of a dumb point, too.

[grits-n-gravy]

Originally Posted by TwinSwords

On this issue, I don't see the importance of leading by example. What would be the point of that? Why should the Obamas be concerned with persauding people to choose public education

I think it's more about persuading people that they are big supporters of public education. By their actions, they're also big supporters of private education. Nothing wrong with supporting either, but the political rhetoric at times belies the reality.

It's as if the Obama's came out in favor of clean tap water availble to the communities of America, and were called hypocrits because they drink bottled water. Who cares if they drink bottled water? What the Obamas personally consume is irrelevant. The far more important consideration is the principle that our nation's water supplies should be free of contamination

Good analogy. But I disagree with the conclusion. As public servants, the relevance of what they drink depends on what others are forced to drink. If Obama can afford to drink clean bottled water while his constituents have to drink polluted tap water until its sufficiently purified, shouldn't his public health policy be geared toward making bottled water more affordable in the interim? In other words, shouldn't the 'least of these' have a choice?

The problem is that public education has never been better than private school education, and good private schools tend to remain good over the long-run, like all the ivy league schools and all the private primary education schools around the country.

It may be harsh to call the Obamas hypocrites, but it's a bit odd to be in favor of public education, while you send your children to the best private schools. It does undermine your message that public schools are worth fighting for cause clearly private education tends to be more successful than public education and is the reason most successful Washingtonians send their kids to private school.

I'm one who thinks public education can work, but it can really only work where the entire community participates in it, i.e., there are no seriously good private institutions competing with the public schools. Unfortunately in many places the private schools were there first and they've cornered the market for the kids of the affluent.

However, maybe Obama supports vouchers or some kind of market reform of public education. If so, sending his kids to private schools matters less.

[TwinSwords]

Originally Posted by Lemon Sorbet

Grits, my understanding on the feelings of proponents of public eduction is thus: American public eduction system is awesome, but we've let it decline and we've got to get it back. Meanwhile, I cannot send my own child to this declined institution but we've got to work actively right now to set it right again.

No, that's wrong. Public education continues to provide excellent educations in many school districts. Republican talking points and the Republican war on education may have succeeded in convincing many people that public education sucks across the board -- but those talking points will only persuade people with no direct experience with good public schools. If I lived in an urban center, I might be one of those people. But I've lived in middle class suburbs all my life and the schools everywhere I've lived have always been excellent. And teachers in those districts have had no hesitancy about sending their own children to the public schools in those districts.

Again, if you are going to make a blanket assertion that teachers don't send their children to public schools, it would be nice if you could provide data, because it certainly doesn't match my experience.

Twins,

I'm not sure Republicans are against public education per se, especially since they're the ones in control of many of the suburbs that do have excellent public education.

They're usually on the other side against teachers' unions and they see the value in vouchers to try to improve school choice for the underprivileged, but that doesn't mean they're for private schools over public schools.

Obama's actual views on public education probably fall in with a number of Republicans' views on it.

[bkjazfan]

[QUOTE=TwinSwords;103681]No, that's wrong. Public education continues to provide excellent educations in many school districts. Republican talking points and the Republican war on education may have succeeded in convincing many people that public education sucks across the board -- but those talking points will only persuade people with no direct experience with good public schools. If I lived in an urban center, I might be one of those people. But I've lived in middle class suburbs all my life and the schools everywhere I've lived have always been excellent. And teachers in those districts have had no hesitancy about sending their own children to the public schools in those districts.

Again, if you are going to make a blanket assertion that teachers don't send their children to public schools, it would be nice if you could provide data, because it certainly doesn't match my experience.[/QUOTE

Nationally 21% of public schools school teachers send their own children to private schools. This is double the country's average of 10%. You get into some low performing inner city schools like in Baltimore and D.C. and find the teachers are more reticent to participate with the this 21% jumping to 30 and 40%.

I think many politicans of all stripes give lip service to supporting public education. It could be extrapolated that some of them do so since they send their children to private schools and don't have a stake in them.

I am for improving the public schools not abolishing them. Practically my entire family comprising at least 2 generations are products of the country's second largest school system: Los Angeles Unified School District.

John

[TwinSwords]

Originally Posted by bkjazfan

Democratic politicians as a rule support public schools. However, many of them don't send their children to them.

Republican politicians as a rule support public education, too. And likewise, many don't send their own children to them. The fact is, and I'm surprised you aren't aware of this, that private schools are more expensive and are not an option for most Americans. The purpose of public school is to provide free education to every child in America — a notion supported by the overwhelming majority of our population. It's perfectly reasonable for a poltician to support a public education system available to all while simultaneously supporting the existence of better schools that cost more money and are available only to people of above average incomes. In fact, Republicans wouldn't have it any other way.

Unless you are arguing that public schools should be abolished, I fail to see the substance of your complaint.

Originally Posted by bkjazfan

There is also a propensity amongst teachers of all stripes to send their kids to private schools.

Where's your evidence for this suggestion? I know many, many teachers, including many in my own family, and many friends and neighbors, and not a single one sends their kids to private school.

[sharkdog]

The only democrat to send his daughter to public school, that I know of is Jiimmy Carter and look at what a bag of sewage she turned to be- shacking up with Abbie Hoffman- the biggest scumbag of the 60's. And there is no decade that produced more skumbags than the 60's. so being the bigest one required him to sink to unbelievable levels of scummyness. I wonder if the Obamas allow thier children to hanf around turds like Ayers and Wright.

[popcorn_karate]

Originally Posted by sharkdog

The only democrat to send his daughter to public school, that I know of is Jiimmy Carter and look at what a bag of sewage she turned to be- shacking up with Abbie Hoffman- the biggest scumbag of the 60's. And there is no decade that produced more skumbags than the 60's. so being the bigest one required him to sink to unbelievable levels of scummyness. I wonder if the Obamas allow thier children to hanf around turds like Ayers and Wright.

wow, thanks for posting - proof that a complete moron can learn how to type. was that from private or public education? because if public schools can teach a scummy turd like you - they are just flat out amazing.

have a nice day.

[ogieogie]

John's new book looks interesting. I'd enjoy seeing him pair up with another linguist some time, maybe for a Science Saturday, just to chat about linguistics (esp. the history of English, since that's what he's been into.) (I, for one, usually find John's linguistic ideas more agreeable than his social/polical dabbling.)

I always find it amusing when economists like Loury rush to the defense of the super-rich when the subject of "compensation" arises. Forget for a moment the figure of $500,000 and whether or not the typical banker or executive could live in the style to which he is accustomed on such a paltry sum in Washington DC or Manhattan (in a country where the average salary is around $50,000). The fact remains that in the United States the discrepancy between what the richest 5% earn and own (property, stocks, etc.) and what the remaining 95% earn and own is the WIDEST in the western world.

I would sincerely like to believe that all these people, with their prestigious law and business school degrees, truly deserve their rewards and are among the lords of humankind, but having attended prestigious schools in the United States, I have my doubts.

[willmybasilgrow]

Yeah, I was appalled to hear Glenn lauding Brooks' article. What a disgusting article! Who cares about parties? Who gives the best parties will sort itself out somehow. It just so does not matter on the national scale or in conversations about governance.

What does Glenn teach anyway, and how in the world can he have such a seeming lack of ethics? Jesus Christ, $500,000 is a lot of money!

Is he trying to be macho or what?

The wage gap doesn't matter, however, when the middle class in America is so well off. If a middle class family can afford to fly to Paris and visit the Louvre just like the wealthy banker, what does it matter that some other person could fly over and visit umpteen more times than the middle class family could?

New York is also New York and it's an expensive place because so many people from both the U.S. and the world want to live there. So you have to be able to afford your place there, if you want to live there. The rest of America is nothing like New York though.