Tuesday, August 28, 2012
Williams on public education
I hope you don't get tired of Walter Williams. He pierces the political crap and tells it like it is. He exposes the idiocy, lies and hypocrisy of the far left. (The far right has its share, but that's another topic.) In this article Williams exposes some of the liberal fraud about public education. Politicians in general, and liberals in particular love, to throw money on problems without any real plan or hope of success. Why? It's a convenient cover for pretending to have a solution and for buying votes. More money for teachers and technology, etc. do not solve the problems of inner-city schools. Teachers, teacher's unions, school bureaucrats and school boards love extra money. So do all the vendors and contractors who make profits. However, have you noticed that the problems never seem to get fixed no matter how much $ we throw at them? Look at D.C. The fundamental problems, violence in school, lack of parental support for education, peer group pressure against academic achievement, lax discipline, dumbed-down standards, teaching for tests, etc. are not tackled. While there are constitutional limits on how far government can intervene in the lives of children and families, poor parenting, single-parent household, etc. these problems can be addressed in a constitutional fashion. But, they are not, for ideological reasons. However, don't just blame the liberals. "Conservative" Pres. George W. Bush brought us the catastrophe known as no child left behind. Although I am not so sure that alternatives to public education are the cure, it's obvious that reason needs to prevail.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
The problems with inner city schools is the lack of tax base. In most places in the US, schools are funded by property taxes in their district. With low property values and high vacancy rate, inner city schools do not get the funding that public schools, often better than private schools, in "nice neighborhoods" get. Another problem is that less experienced and teachers that pissed off the administration get sent to those schools.
ReplyDeleteGEJ Thanks! You are right about the tax base being lower, and that poorer districts and schools often don't end up with the best teachers. However, this is not the CORE problem. No matter how much is spent, the results will not markedly improve in many of these districts because of the problems Williams outlines. Further, more money only means more $ in the hands of corrupt, officials, politicians and providers/vendors. Witness the continuing scandal in the Dallas TX district and the former Wilmer-Hutchins TX district. This reminds me of the millions we spend on food for famine relief in Africa. It also reminds me of the massive corruption in Mexico's public schools where teacher's unions run the show. Even that targeted for sensible programs most of the money never gets to the people who need it. Warlords, administrator's, bureaucrats and politicians grab the lion's share. Further,how does the argument of lower expenditures explain the D.C. catastrophe? D.C. spends more per student than any other jurisdiction, yet its schools are a constant disaster. More money on the usual expenditures is not going to change the social, academic achievement, or political environment. Yes, more needs to be spent on school security and getting parents involved, etc. but more $ via the status guo is not the solution to the base problem. Obama's proposal is just another make-believe solution designed to buy votes rather than provide real solutions. Finally, I could be wrong, but I think there are a few states were funding is equalized by state law. I wonder what has happened in those states. (Texas has tried this, but the legislature put so many loopholes in the law that it hasn't worked and is being challenged in court.)
ReplyDeleteGood points. I think Wyoming's is equalized. We also fund them with export taxes on natural resources. Alaska has a similar tax, but they use it to pay folks for living there.
DeleteI'm not saying just throw money at it. That does little good if district administrators and school boards piss it away on stupid stuff. One example from my home state, the small Wyoming town that used the oil money to hire a retired NFL coach for the high school football team. From what I read, the GAO said that is DC's problem. When control went from a board of education to the mayor, it seems like they adopted DoD's accounting system.
Even after you spend the money properly and upgrade the facilities, there is still the problem money can't fix. It is actually the biggest problem, but neither the left or the right wants to admit it because it is nothing "big government" or "free market" can do about it. It is anti intellectualism on the part of the kids and community at large (or book learning hurts my street cred.) All of the pretty football fields and super cool IT systems in the world can't fix that.
GEJ: Thanks for the comment. I think we agree on a lot. Do you know of any research from the states that fund districts equally? I bet you would still find marked differences in academic a achievement, drop out rates, etc. Texas is also obsessed with high school football. In the small towns it is worse than an obsession.IMHO public education in TX is a sick joke many places (e.g. Dallas)
DeleteNot off hand. It is something I have not researched. It seems that we agree 100 percent on guns, unions not so much. Things might be bigger in Texas, but they are better in Wyoming.
DeleteSpeaking of money, education is a domestic matter belonging solely to the respective individual states. Central government shouldn't be involved in the first place. The federal's DOE is nothing more than a wasteful and unconstitutional duplication mostly benefiting DC's social progressive bureaucrats and elitists. It's an abomination when these actors pretend to give a hoot about local educational needs. Even if some of these folks are well intended, interfering in states' educational affairs is totally misguided and wrong.
ReplyDelete44: I agree to a certain extent. Certainly under the original understanding of the Constitution, public education was a responsibility reserved to the states under the 10th Amend. However, Congress has the power to tax and spend for the "general welfare." For better or worse (probably the worse) the Supreme Court has interpreted the power broadly and under current precedent, federal intervention is clearly constitutional. However, in most circumstances the intervention is probably counterproductive (e.g. no child left behind) and wasteful money-wise. I agree that most politicians and school bureaucrats don't really support good education in public education.
ReplyDelete