Deacfreak07
Ain't played nobody, PAWL!
Do you oppose open enrollment or not?
I do. Let's fix the schools that are bad. That should be the priority.
If/when I have kids, would I take advantage of it, of course.
Do you oppose open enrollment or not?
Then you are suggesting otherwise.
Then you are suggesting otherwise.
that's stupid. if you take all the tax deductions to which you are entitled, does that mean you oppose reforming the tax code?
I was differentiating between the decision of a parent and the decisions of policy makers. Of course you should choose the best possible school for your kids as a parent. No one is suggesting otherwise. My point is that it seems ludicrous to me that we would write public policy resigned that some schools will just be inevitably flawed.
But at some point is it better to recognize that some schools are going to be inevitably flawed for the relevant future and simply do the best we can to maximize what works well, instead of going in circles in an attempt to somehow save the entire thing while knowing that is extremely unlikely to happen, and wasting time (and kids) in the circlejerk? It's like Social Security. Anybody with half a brain knows the problems and how it would get fixed in a perfect world, but everybody also knows that it will never get fixed in the foreseeable future with our political system. So do you try to make incremental fixes like age adjustments to at least minimze the damage, or do you just watch the whole system crash and burn while trying to come up with a solution that will either never be found or never be implemented?
But at some point is it better to recognize that some schools are going to be inevitably flawed for the relevant future and simply do the best we can to maximize what works well, instead of going in circles in an attempt to somehow save the entire thing while knowing that is extremely unlikely to happen, and wasting time (and kids) in the circlejerk? It's like Social Security. Anybody with half a brain knows the problems and how it would get fixed in a perfect world, but everybody also knows that it will never get fixed in the foreseeable future with our political system. So do you try to make incremental fixes like age adjustments to at least minimze the damage, or do you just watch the whole system crash and burn while trying to come up with a solution that will either never be found or never be implemented?
If you take all the tax deductions to which you are entitled, but argue to eliminate tax deductions, it means that you are either quite a hypocrit or believe that you gain overall if everyone else's tax deductions are eliminated. That is how people can sing the praises of increased taxes but never voluntarily send in additional tax money themselves.
But at some point is it better to recognize that some schools are going to be inevitably flawed for the relevant future and simply do the best we can to maximize what works well, instead of going in circles in an attempt to somehow save the entire thing while knowing that is extremely unlikely to happen, and wasting time (and kids) in the circlejerk? It's like Social Security. Anybody with half a brain knows the problems and how it would get fixed in a perfect world, but everybody also knows that it will never get fixed in the foreseeable future with our political system. So do you try to make incremental fixes like age adjustments to at least minimze the damage, or do you just watch the whole system crash and burn while trying to come up with a solution that will either never be found or never be implemented?
Policy should be written for a communal benefit. Individuals should operate within that policy in their own self-interest. This really shouldn't be too hard to understand.
Those failing schools are not in the abstract. Those failing schools in a district are comprised of 1,000s of kids who will be stuck there with an over reliance on choice policies to evade the problems that exist.
I agree. So what is better, to keep a failing school as-is and keep 1,000 kids there, or enact some pretty poor legislation that keeps 900 kids there? Because those are the two options we are faced with; there is no third option on the table that fixes it for all 1,000 kids.
It's like the post-release arguments for Obamacare. Something is better than nothing is all we have heard. The problem with Obamacare is that, arguably, it is a net engative. And that is the question here. Does something like this proposed legislation create a net positive or a net negative. If you are one of the kids going from a bad school to a good school, then it is a net positive. Given that I doubt many people will be going from a good school to a bad school (because otherwise you would just stay in your home district), then it would seem to be a net positive. Maybe not a great net positive, but arguably better than the status quo.
This sums up everything that is wrong with our current political atmosphere and why I have zero respect for the modern upper-class faux progressive.
In the end its all about making yourself feel better about yourself, not actually about affecting change.
As to actual policy, I'd create a system in which each county and/or district would do its best to have all of its schools at a similar income average.
The logical conclusion of your specious argument is that no one can criticize anything about the society they live in. Since that is the case, please confine your posts to criticizing China from now on. The rest of us will thank you.