McWhorter and Loury Strike Back

[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]

I sense that everybody is wondering what I think about school reform. :P

If you have an hour, listen to a great, great episode of This American Life:

http://www.thisamericanlife.org/Radi...px?episode=275

Related, an example of excellence in medicine:

http://www.newyorker.com/archive/200...urrentPage=all

There are so silver bullets. Yet success is possible. You just need people to give a shit.

Maybe the solution is more pubic radio and more New Yorker articles. Or blogs or something.

[Unit]

Originally Posted by Francoamerican

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.

I believe in the free-market, so I'm against price controls. Now, people will counter by saying that these super-rich are taking advantage of monopoly privileges, rents, or in this case direct cash bail-outs from the government. So they are not really super-rich because of supply-and-demand: the market is already distorted, what's another distortion on top of it. Well two wrongs don't make a right. Ever wondered why bureaucracy attracts the marginally more mediocre? Because if government hand-outs have too many strings attached, the innovators, the independent-minded flee. There is actually a silver lining in this sort of populism: it makes federal bail-out dollars a lot less appealing. But in the end they will find a middle ground, because government is really itching bad to give money away, and the rent-seekers are scavenging around like dogs that have tasted tidbits of filet mignon...

[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.

Silverlining in the bailout? Because all those dynamic MBAs, financiers and corporate lawyers will be driven to greener pastures where there are no caps on what they can earn? Good luck to them! But where exactly are those greener pastures anyway?

I wish I could accept your equation of the private sector and economic virtue, but surely the last decade of financial wizardry and flimflammery has shown us that rent-seeking behavior isn't confined to the public sector. The gap between the super-rich and the rest (let's say the upper 3% of the population) is enormous, and it has little to do with their talents and much to do with their ability to leverage themselves into the stratosphere. First the dotcom bubble, then the housing and stock market bubbles, and now what?

Let us hope the stimulus package stimulates the real economy instead of filling with more hot air the Wallstreet shysters who brought about the present crisis.

[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.

[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.

[Unit]

Originally Posted by Francoamerican

Silverlining in the bailout? Because all those dynamic MBAs, financiers and corporate lawyers will be driven to greener pastures where there are no caps on what they can earn? Good luck to them! But where exactly are those greener pastures anyway?

I wish I could accept your equation of the private sector and economic virtue, but surely the last decade of financial wizardry and flimflammery has shown us that rent-seeking behavior isn't confined to the public sector. The gap between the super-rich and the rest (let's say the upper 3% of the population) is enormous, and it has little to do with their talents and much to do with their ability to leverage themselves into the stratosphere. First the dotcom bubble, then the housing and stock market bubbles, and now what?

Let us hope the stimulus package stimulates the real economy instead of filling with more hot air the Wallstreet shysters who brought about the present crisis.

No. Silverlining in "the strings attached to the bailout". My view is somewhat different: the bubble was driven directly by government regulations and the Treasury monopoly on money. The current bailouts and stimulii are more of the same. So I don't have any hope whatsoever.

[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.

[Ray]

Originally Posted by harkin

1) A two-parent family that is present in the child's after school time, engaged in the student's progress and provides an environment that fosters good study skills.

2) Teachers and schools that do the same during school hours with accountability for administration, teachers and students.

1) Outlaw single parents.

2) Conscript people into working for schools.

[claymisher]

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

I stopped at about 13 minutes.

[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.

[popcorn_karate]

Originally Posted by graz

I didn't take his points as bitterness or discredit to Obama. Glenn fairly makes the point that our President's pigmentation is nearly irrelevant to the tasks at hand for the CEO of the USA.
This point was best elaborated by the comparison of MLK's role as sacred and the job of a politician as profane. This in no way detracts from the acknowledged color of either man's skin.

i have to agree. Obama is a Politician. he will disappoint you. he will make compromises (some of us will see this as "selling out"), and there is no need to set yourself up for even greater disappointment by thinking he is anything like MLK. Yes, its very cool to see that America is moving past its racist past. Obama is not the reason. and there is no need to set him up as a symbol when he has no chance of fulfilling that role.

Also, maybe it is time to stop pretending that "Black" issues are truly about being "Black". starting to disentangle the class issues from the race issues (many of which overlap) should allow progressives to finally make some progress on some of these issues if they are not constantly being split by race.

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.

[nikkibong]

Originally Posted by BeachFrontView

http://bloggingheads.tv/diavlogs/176...9:25&out=09:39

This from a man who wrote a book called The Anatomy of Racial Inequality.

Clearly, Glenn simply craves being a controversialist, and will take whatever position that opposes his interlocuter. Real mature.

[nikkibong]

Five star post, lemon sorbet.

[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

[sugarkang]

Originally Posted by Ray

1) Outlaw single parents.

2) Conscript people into working for schools.

Seriously. If kids want to learn, they will be willing to learn in a slum. It doesn't matter how much you upgrade their stuff. The problem is the culture of anti-intellectualism that pervades through each successive generation. If you can get the parents to care about education, the problem would be over instantly.

[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.

[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.

[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?

[x9#z6]

Yes! finally McWhorter and Loury are back. Just my opinion here but I'd very much like to hear much more of these skilled deconstructionists on social topics that extend beyond race...like general politics for instance or whatever strikes their fancy.

[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.

[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?

[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.

[tarajane]

Love to hear Glenn and love it best to hear him with McWhorter. And I share Glenn's weariness with the sentimentality. The good news is that it is wearing off. Yes, it is nice to see a brown face in the highest office but it's fast becoming old news. News is what he does in office, not his ethnic make up.

[Unit]

I wonder if one of these days Glenn can comment on the thesis that most of FDR's New Deal was essentially anti-black legislation. Is there a kernel of truth in that proposition? After all unionization was very effective at keeping blacks out of the labor market.