• Welcome to OGBoards 10.0, keep in mind that we will be making LOTS of changes to smooth out the experience here and make it as close as possible functionally to the old software, but feel free to drop suggestions or requests in the Tech Support subforum!

NC Open Enrollment School Bill

Deacfreak07 said:
I'm suggesting there should be a third option.
Click to expand...

And I'm suggesting RJ's aunt has balls, but that doesn't mean she has them. So we're supposed to sit around and wait for Santa Claus or the Easter Bunny to fix all of our problems?
 
Deacfreak07 said:
:squint: Unpack this.
Click to expand...

If you're not willing to ask your own family to make a certain "sacrifice" without government intervention, then you have no business telling the rest of society that this should be a common policy.

Now this can be a complex idea when it comes to taxation, but I'm comfortable saying that if you're the guy that uses every loophole possible to pay less and less to Uncle Sam, then I give two fucks that you think we should raise our tax rate. Because its not like that tax rate is truly going to apply to you.
 
Another interesting dynamic here is don't you already have school choice by choosing where you want to live?
 
PhDeac said:
You busin', bro?
Click to expand...

Oh for sure. I have no problem with busing. It provides a positive benefit for all parties involved, and hopefully will lead to future generations that are much more communal and less entitled.
 
2&2 Slider To Leyritz said:
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.
Click to expand...

Of course there is third option. Guilford County has a turnaround plan with proven results. Fire the principal, make all the teachers reapply for their jobs, and add extra funding to encourage new teachers to come to the school, plus additional resources from the central office. The strategy has resulted in significant year over year progress in every school it's been tried. Some conservatives might prefer to make the school a charter school, which is a fine solution as long as it is with an organization like KIP that has proven results. Look what New Orleans has done, or some of the results NYC has had even over the resistance of the teachers' union. What you are presenting is a false choice.

And in presenting it, you have not addressed the key underlying flaw with school choice. These schemes primarily help the kids who already have parents with resources and would probably turn out OK anyway, and does nothing for the kids with the least. So those who are "left behind" are the ones who would most benefit from the help. That impacts the degree of net positive, does it not?
 
BillBrasky said:
If you're not willing to ask your own family to make a certain "sacrifice" without government intervention, then you have no business telling the rest of society that this should be a common policy.

Now this can be a complex idea when it comes to taxation, but I'm comfortable saying that if you're the guy that uses every loophole possible to pay less and less to Uncle Sam, then I give two fucks that you think we should raise our tax rate. Because its not like that tax rate is truly going to apply to you.
Click to expand...

I don't see the problem. For example, I don't think the government should subsidize marriage, but I claim that exemption. I would not oppose this policy with the intent of "requiring sacrifice", I would oppose it with intent of improving all schools in a district. I want my kids to go to great schools, but I also want every other kid to go to great schools. I wish we valued education like the most important investment we can make as a country. We don't, but I think it absolutely is.
 
Deacfreak07 said:
I don't see the problem. For example, I don't think the government should subsidize marriage, but I claim that exemption. I would not oppose this policy with the intent of "requiring sacrifice", I would oppose it with intent of improving all schools in a district.
Click to expand...

So you need everyone else to be doing it, in order for you to agree that its the morally correct thing to do?

Stop being a fraud.
 
Just out of curiosity, braksy, where is the water's edge of this hypocrisy? Is it hypocritical that I didn't buy a house in a district zoned for a poor school because I want those schools to be better? Is it hypocritical to support policies that intend to reduce crime if I don't live in Camden?

Everyone acts in their own self-interest. Always. Basic fact of life. I view national education policy that improves all school as within my own self-interest. I don't pretend to be morally superior by any stretch.
 
Deacfreak07 said:
Another interesting dynamic here is don't you already have school choice by choosing where you want to live?
Click to expand...

Our district changed from a high school 3 miles away to one 7 miles away years after we bought our house. I don't think we make enough to just flip houses at will.

Luckily, we have 2 years before middle school.
 
That's a cop out. You're the 1850's son of a plantation owner, who understands that slavery is wrong, but knows that the financial ramifications of freeing his slaves would put him at a competitive disadvantage. It wouldn't destroy the farm, but it would make it less profitable.

Act upon your convictions, or keep them to yourself.
 
BillBrasky said:
That's a cop out. You're the 1850's son of a plantation owner, who understands that slavery is wrong, but knows that the financial ramifications of freeing his slaves would put him at a competitive disadvantage. It wouldn't destroy the farm, but it would make it less profitable.

Act upon your convictions, or keep them to yourself.
Click to expand...

Fair enough. Is voting considered acting on your convictions in a democracy? Is advocacy?
 
Deacon923 said:
Of course there is third option. Guilford County has a turnaround plan with proven results. Fire the principal, make all the teachers reapply for their jobs, and add extra funding to encourage new teachers to come to the school, plus additional resources from the central office. The strategy has resulted in significant year over year progress in every school it's been tried. Some conservatives might prefer to make the school a charter school, which is a fine solution as long as it is with an organization like KIP that has proven results. Look what New Orleans has done, or some of the results NYC has had even over the resistance of the teachers' union. What you are presenting is a false choice.

And in presenting it, you have not addressed the key underlying flaw with school choice. These schemes primarily help the kids who already have parents with resources and would probably turn out OK anyway, and does nothing for the kids with the least. So those who are "left behind" are the ones who would most benefit from the help. That impacts the degree of net positive, does it not?
Click to expand...

To your first paragraph, if your solution is to keep the status quo and let individual Counties or Cities like you have mentioned handle their business, then I am fine with that. But then don't complain when some Counties or Cities shit the bed or don't do anything at all, and don't complain that not enough is being done at a higher level.

To your second paragraph, and the question specifically raised in the last sentence, my answer would be no. If you are starting from the current reality, those "left behind" are already left behind under the current system. If you are using a linear scale, they are already at zero and their number isn't changing. Now some of them that get out and can take advantage of school choice become net positives, but the new policy isn't creating a negative by leaving somebody where they already are. Is it even remotely close to a good overall solution, absolutely not. But only real margin is the kids from worse schools going to better schools, which is a gain. You wouldn't have kids going to worse schools than those they already go to, so there is minimal downside.
 
Deacfreak07 said:
Fair enough. Is voting considered acting on your convictions in a democracy? Is advocacy?
Click to expand...

Who did you vote for? The guy with the D beside his name, or the person that would actually attempt to enact the changes you believe in?
 
BillBrasky said:
Who did you vote for? The guy with the D beside his name, or the person that would actually attempt to enact the changes you believe in?
Click to expand...

In your morally superior view, is it possible that those are aligned? I wouldn't want to be a hypocrite.
 
Whoever it was that said that Brasky's opinion to information ratio is off the charts really nailed it
 
BillBrasky said:
If you're not willing to ask your own family to make a certain "sacrifice" without government intervention, then you have no business telling the rest of society that this should be a common policy.

Now this can be a complex idea when it comes to taxation, but I'm comfortable saying that if you're the guy that uses every loophole possible to pay less and less to Uncle Sam, then I give two fucks that you think we should raise our tax rate. Because its not like that tax rate is truly going to apply to you.
Click to expand...

This applies to defense, right?
 
Deacfreak07 said:
In your morally superior view, is it possible that those are aligned? I wouldn't want to be a hypocrite.
Click to expand...

Sometimes, but not often. And you allow that to continue by blindly voting for those candidates.

And sorry bud, but you are. You're asking people to act against their own self-interest, when you're unwilling to do the same thing yourself. Hypocrite may not be the best possible definition of what you and many others do, but you're a part of the problem and not the solution.
 
BillBrasky said:
Sometimes, but not often. And you allow that to continue by blindly voting for those candidates.

And sorry bud, but you are. You're asking people to act against their own self-interest, when you're unwilling to do the same thing yourself. Hypocrite may not be the best possible definition of what you and many others do, but you're a part of the problem and not the solution.
Click to expand...

Where did he do that?

Seems like he just wants the policy to be different, because in his opinion a different policy would be better for society as a whole
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top