So this post has the same content as the earlier link to your discussion on vouchers, but...is on a different website? Do we really need to hear your rags-to-riches 2000 square foot apartment with prostitutes story again?
Don't you (maybe) think that the educational outcomes these kids are experiencing is only a small reflection of the quality of schools? I honestly doubt that voucher schools would serve to raise the majority of kids at the lower end of the distribution. Factors like rising income inequality, less social support for poor families, the COMPLETE lack of affordable, quality, childcare and pre-k programs all seem like more plausible reasons why these kids continue to "fail" in the system. Why do you expect that restructuring the educational system via vouchers would fix any of these problems?
What I find facinating about Meg's agrument (and BTW...congrats for making the Times) is that she keeps stating that vouchers will fix everything but not how. My understanding of the DC voucher system is that when they tracked the kids who got vouchers vs. the kids who only requested vouchers both sets of kids did pretty much equally well. The reason? Both sets of kids were motivated to do better and came from families which motivated them to do better. You know the other thing that markedly affects results? Smaller class sizes.
So, we know smaller class sizes and motivated kids improve test scores. Other things that improve test scores? Good home lives, positive family role models, good nutrition, the ability to get reward for hard work.
How are any of these things effected by vouchers?
And what of those children who don't have motivated parents, who get stuck in the suckiest school system possible because their parents just don't care? We've now pillaged their school of any good teachers, any additional funds and any window into motivated students. You're worried about the tail end of the curve? That's it right there Meg. And you've trapped them in a system that now isn't just partially broken, it's all broken. Congrats again.
Vouchers are absurd -- the voucher advocate's only interest is in getting rid of the public school system altogether.
The public school system is the ONLY morally defensible educational solution for any society. Private schools suck just as much as public schools, unless you're talking about very expensive public schools which still won't be open to poor people waving your vaunted vouchers.
So does this prove or disprove that the Times won't link the debates that feature the f-word?
And shouldn't someone who admires the '86 tax reform find the very existence of the 15% capital gains rate being used for the hedge funds' carried interest problematic? One of the big advances of '86 was to remove the preferential treatment of capital gains and to tax it at the same 28% as the rest of income. I realize that you probably don't admire the parts of the reform pushed forward by Bill Bradley as much as those pushed by Reagan, but it is that kind of flattening -- the steadfast insistence on getting rid of incentives to game the system and get your lawyer to figure out how something can be taxed at a lower rate than something else -- that made the '86 reform truly awesome and possible. (And I say this as someone whose own income may depend on having a game-able tax system that employs lawyers.) Unless everyone's ox gets a little gored, it's difficult to get political support for such sweeping change.
Also, you can't compare the U.S. and Britain on tax immigration precisely, because the U.S. has worldwide taxation on citizens. An American hedge fund manager can't just move to Bermuda; he'd have to renounce U.S. citizenship. The U.S. is actually rather unusual in this respect, because it seems that most countries tax based on where the money was made rather than the citizenship of the person being taxed.
Point of fact, Brad: when you're trying to make a sincere and convincing argument, it helps if your sincerity expresses itself in a cogent and intelligent manner, rather than a parody of a parody. Like a double negative, it still returns back to the original idea; but unless used in a rather clever context, it merely suggests that the person who uses it has not, as they say, been burdened with an overabundance of schooling.
Not that this raises the tone of the debate much, but your hair looks so awesome I stopped my husband, deep into a Tomb Raider game, to say, "Look at Megan's hair!"
So this post has the same content as the earlier link to your discussion on vouchers, but...is on a different website? Do we really need to hear your rags-to-riches 2000 square foot apartment with prostitutes story again?
Hard to believe, Rickm, but watching these videos isn't compulsory. So, no, you don't need to hear the story again.
Don't you (maybe) think that the educational outcomes these kids are experiencing is only a small reflection of the quality of schools? I honestly doubt that voucher schools would serve to raise the majority of kids at the lower end of the distribution. Factors like rising income inequality, less social support for poor families, the COMPLETE lack of affordable, quality, childcare and pre-k programs all seem like more plausible reasons why these kids continue to "fail" in the system. Why do you expect that restructuring the educational system via vouchers would fix any of these problems?
What I find facinating about Meg's agrument (and BTW...congrats for making the Times) is that she keeps stating that vouchers will fix everything but not how. My understanding of the DC voucher system is that when they tracked the kids who got vouchers vs. the kids who only requested vouchers both sets of kids did pretty much equally well. The reason? Both sets of kids were motivated to do better and came from families which motivated them to do better. You know the other thing that markedly affects results? Smaller class sizes.
So, we know smaller class sizes and motivated kids improve test scores. Other things that improve test scores? Good home lives, positive family role models, good nutrition, the ability to get reward for hard work.
How are any of these things effected by vouchers?
And what of those children who don't have motivated parents, who get stuck in the suckiest school system possible because their parents just don't care? We've now pillaged their school of any good teachers, any additional funds and any window into motivated students. You're worried about the tail end of the curve? That's it right there Meg. And you've trapped them in a system that now isn't just partially broken, it's all broken. Congrats again.
Vouchers are absurd -- the voucher advocate's only interest is in getting rid of the public school system altogether.
The public school system is the ONLY morally defensible educational solution for any society. Private schools suck just as much as public schools, unless you're talking about very expensive public schools which still won't be open to poor people waving your vaunted vouchers.
Libertarians are the worst.
So does this prove or disprove that the Times won't link the debates that feature the f-word?
And shouldn't someone who admires the '86 tax reform find the very existence of the 15% capital gains rate being used for the hedge funds' carried interest problematic? One of the big advances of '86 was to remove the preferential treatment of capital gains and to tax it at the same 28% as the rest of income. I realize that you probably don't admire the parts of the reform pushed forward by Bill Bradley as much as those pushed by Reagan, but it is that kind of flattening -- the steadfast insistence on getting rid of incentives to game the system and get your lawyer to figure out how something can be taxed at a lower rate than something else -- that made the '86 reform truly awesome and possible. (And I say this as someone whose own income may depend on having a game-able tax system that employs lawyers.) Unless everyone's ox gets a little gored, it's difficult to get political support for such sweeping change.
Also, you can't compare the U.S. and Britain on tax immigration precisely, because the U.S. has worldwide taxation on citizens. An American hedge fund manager can't just move to Bermuda; he'd have to renounce U.S. citizenship. The U.S. is actually rather unusual in this respect, because it seems that most countries tax based on where the money was made rather than the citizenship of the person being taxed.
Point of fact, Brad: when you're trying to make a sincere and convincing argument, it helps if your sincerity expresses itself in a cogent and intelligent manner, rather than a parody of a parody. Like a double negative, it still returns back to the original idea; but unless used in a rather clever context, it merely suggests that the person who uses it has not, as they say, been burdened with an overabundance of schooling.
Vouchers are absurd -- the voucher advocate's only interest is in getting rid of the public school system altogether.
Brad: where can I get some of those mind-reading pills?
Not that this raises the tone of the debate much, but your hair looks so awesome I stopped my husband, deep into a Tomb Raider game, to say, "Look at Megan's hair!"
I just wanted to say that after watching this bloggingheads episode, I felt bad about every mean thing I ever thought about you, Meghan.