ACTA's Must-Reads

Thank [Supreme Being]. My neighbor was part of that crowd for three years.

Do they realize how politically one-sided they really are? Even when their peers say, "well, the MBAs have all the good-paying jobs, we should be allowed to be Democrats, en masse?"

How all that yada-yada about "the next big thing" lasts as long until the local school board moves onto "the next big thing?" As opposed to basics?

How, at bottom, they cannot explain what they do? That there is no unified, measurable basis for their "profession," as opposed to medicine, law, or accounting?

This union-dominated crowd ought to be defunded, to allow reforms to be implemented. There wouldn't be any significant difference because the public is so well-educated now?

What did "social justice" ever mean, anyway? It can't have meant legal justice, because that's what we call simply "justice"; it can't have meant personal charity, because that has its own words too. At bottom, was it ever meant to connote more than the government redistribution of wealth to groups perceived as disadvantaged?

Actually, Dogg, "social justice" means ensuring equality of opportunity. I don't think any college program of study should include the term in its mission statement, but let's be clear about something:

America was built on the idea of equality of opportunity. But everyone knows that, for the most part, a child born to rich parents has opportunities that a child born in poverty does not have. Critics will say, "Well, 'equality of opportunity' only means equal access to public resources." But then we see that, insofar as schools are funded through property taxes, rich neighborhoods have better schools. (And for everyone who says that we shouldn't throw money at schools, I point to Exeter and the Hill School, and I ask rich parents to send their children to poor schools and see what happens.)

So sure, social justice means redistributing wealth. But no child deserves to be born behind the eight ball, and a society founded on the ideal of equality of opportunity must ensure that all children have equal opportunities. You can blame parents, you can blame adults, but you cannot blame the child. Until every child has the opportunity to receive an Exeter-style education, I can't see that we've achieved full justice in education.

DO YOU HAVE A CALCULATOR?

" .. Until every child has the opportunity to receive an Exeter-style education, I can't see that we've achieved full justice in education .."

This is akin to "everyone should have the same health care as the President." Simple math would show that would lead to an immediate bankruptcy.

The President has a personal MD available, 24x7. By extension, that would be like everyone having a $250,000/year personal assistant available 24x7.

As to Exeter -- yo, this is the USA, not U.K. We're different countries, y'know.

Like Lee Iacoccoa, I'm working-class and damn proud of it. The working-class creates new things -- the House of Lords from Exeter merely collects dividends and acts weird from lack of creativity.

If you've got a no-fail, fool-proof plan that would help post-K children to overcome bad parenting with no effort on the child's part, then step to the front. Hillary would make you her vice-president and she'd get my vote. And the Great Pumpkin would also appear.

Russ: "Exeter" as in Phillips Exeter Academy, known to all high school students as Devon Academy from *A Separate Peace*. Small class sizes, top of the line materials and technology, highly qualified instructors, great library, beautiful grounds. That's not really too much to ask for. When state politicians and bureaucrats work in better conditions than those in which students learn, we're in trouble.

The difference between children and the President should be clear, but just in case: the President needs 24/7 health care because his illness or death could lead to social disorder. But a 24/7 doctor nearby is not *better* than free, universal health care. Children deserve the best possible healthcare, the best possible education, the best possible living conditions, that their society can provide. The question is: are we doing our best?

And the either-or thinking that says either doing nothing or have a "no-fail, fool-proof plan" is wrongheaded. We don't wait until we have a perfect, fail-proof plan before invading countries, let alone taking care of sick citizens or educating our kids. Again, we must ask ourselves whether we are doing our best for those who are most vulnerable, who have few rights others must recognize.

THE REAL EXETER

.. is here.

http://www.exeter.ac.uk/

As for this, " .. Children deserve the best possible .."

You state the obvious. As in: Michigan's governor, a Catholic Democrat, once tried to question the humanity of Catholic Republicans, in regard to taxpayer-funded social services. After a million complaints, she backed down.

So, sir: who are you, to question the commitment of others? To you, was Mother Teresa a Republican or a Democrat?

Frankly, those of us with decades of experience in human services question the judgment, common sense and sensibilities of those who have set themselves as self-appointed judges of others.

The U.S. is a shining light in the world, with millions pushing their way in. If you, with your extraordinary judgment, think there is a better place to live -- please go there and encourage them to "do better." We're already doing our best, sir.

Yeah, Russ, sorry: Phillips Exeter Academy was founded in 1781, while The U of Exeter didn't see its first school established until 1855. By any standards, this would make PEA the "real" Exeter in any discussion of education. A pedantic point to be sure, but a point nonetheless.

As far as doing our best goes, as a *nation*, as a voting populace, we are not doing our best. We elect underqualified public servants who appoint unqualified folks to important positions at every level of government. Our public schools are underfunded or moronically budgeted, and the administrations are too often craven or unimaginative. (And let's calculate funding in terms of educational resources, not social services provided by our schools that are provided by the state in other nations.) The decentralization of teaching certification means that as the labor market at large becomes mobile, teachers are locked in to state-based jobs. The decentralization of curricula means that education is scattered. Stupid standardized tests lead to teaching fixated on basic literacy, to the neglect of real content: music, art, literature, history, math, and science.

When hard-working adults go bankrupt or hungry because of medical bills, and when children spend 8 hours a day in crappy schools, we are clearly not doing our best as a people.

Finally, there is no logic to your assertion of "America: love it or leave it." All true Americans have wanted to change America, from the Constitutional Convention to the Civil Rights movement. In fact, I'd rather see everyone who thinks the country is just fine as it is take off.

YOU FIRST

" .. The decentralization of teaching certification means that as the labor market at large becomes mobile, teachers are locked in to state-based jobs .."

Have we forgotten PEA? That's a p-r-i-v-a-t-e school, not bound by "state-based" rules.

News-flash: PEA is not the only private K-12 in USA. Ever heard of Catholic and Jewish K-12s? The ones without public subsidies -- and higher productivity?

" .. we are clearly not doing our best as a people .."

In what context? What metrics? Measurement? Contracts signed?

Harry Truman once spoke of four-alarm ulcer-types in a two-alarm world. They're never happy, unless everyone else is unhappy.

Well, that dog's not going to hunt. Your type can leave the U.S., any time. Others are actually trying to fix problems, versus constant aimless carping.

"social justice means redistributing wealth."

Redistribution of wealth by the state inherently harms the rights of citizens, which is why it is regulated very strictly in our tax system and prohibited in almost any other form. Is the so-called "social justice" merely a plea by well-meaning individuals for a leveling of the playing field by the redistribution of wealth by the state? If you are asking for subsidies to reduce the effects of bad luck, why not just say so? Is it because society looks upon such subsidies with (appropriate) disfavor?

CHECK OUT IHE ON ACTA

Talk about "dispositions." If this isn't a call to defund public academia, I don't know what would be.

http://insidehighered.com/news/2007/11/07/illinois

DISPOSITION: UNPLEASANT, UNHELPFUL, UNEMPLOYABLE

ACTA members, imagine your child being taught by the following:

http://insidehighered.com/news/2007/11/07/illinois

.. Mr. Mitchell, I will expect to see a statement from your organization condemning the U of I �institute� because it is absolutely clear that the research conclusions will have been reached long before the first brick is laid. Even a sympathetic reading of the founding documents makes this fact astonishingly clear.

Anne Neal should stop lying, and so should you.

---------

"Wearing Hypocrisy Like a Badge of Honor"

Anne Neal demonstrates once again (What is this, the 500th time?) that the right-wing culture warriors care only about pushing their ideology by any means necessary. They may, when convenient, talk about principles such as intellectual diversity, but to them, words are merely weapons in their never-ending battle to dominate every institution of American life.

So these great defenders of academic "truth," who conveniently pack their nearby offices with those who ideologically ape them, enjoy calling those with different opinions "liars."

What a lovely way to energize one's pedagogy with sloppy, litigation-attracting language. The disposition of these bitter, complaining old-fogies is self-evident. And it is no wonder why test scores and employability of new graduates are declining.

And they expect the public to "just give us the tax-money, shut up, and leave us alone."

Not in this life. Not for these kinds of poor performance. Not ever. Get used to it.