(06-12-2019 11:00 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(06-12-2019 10:46 AM)georgewebb Wrote:  

(06-12-2019 10:28 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(06-12-2019 10:16 AM)georgewebb Wrote:  

(06-12-2019 10:12 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  You're just seeing what you want to see here, George.

On the contrary: I did not want to see that at all, Lad; I was disappointed and surprised. It seems you may have revealed what you did not want people to see.

Disappointed by me using the word strong? My goodness.

Strong doesn't have to mean rigid and inflexible. Flexible programs can be strong. Effective programs can be strong. Why would you not want a system that is strong and able to withstand hardships?

Now, if I had said supporting a strong school administration, or leadership, I would understand your comment. But I specifically said the system, which is all inclusive - pupils, leaders, teachers, etc. But go ahead and continue to prove that it's not just progressives that can be smug.

I explained my disappointment: that you stated your objective as a strong system rather than effective education. Being disappointed in that is not smugness on my part. I think you were caught in your error and now are trying to backtrack.

More generally, education is very much an area in which "progressives" seem more committed to control than to results. In city after city, time after time, we have seen "progressives" go to the barricades to fight against accountability of schools and teachers for student learning, and to shut down mechanisms that might allow kids to get a good education outside the union-dominated "public school system". Their priority is the "system", not the outcomes. By all evidence, that's what makes "progressives" tick.

I'm not trying to backtrack on an "error," I'm saying that it isn't an error and you're reading far too much into the use of the word "strong" over another term that describes what makes a school system :insert George-approved positive term here:.

I'm no policy expert, but my understanding is that their view is that the system is inherently important to the outcome. That to have the most :insert George-approved positive term here: outcomes for the most pupils, that adequate funding is needed, and siphoning the funding away from the public school systems to the other ones undermines the ability to achieve those outcomes.

If your thesis was true, you would see progressives rail against private schools in general - but they don't. They oppose a voucher system that siphons away funding. I've never seen a mainstream liberal argue that private schools across the board should be disbanded, just that public funds should not go to them.

But the track record shows that:
- But to "progressives", there is no such thing as "adequate" funding. Like the songs says, "When you ask them how much should we give, the only answer is more, more, more..."
- Even if funding for the "system" were quadrupled, "progressives" would still oppose anything that makes it possible for poor kids to get education outside of the system. Because helping students succeed is less important than making sure that they do NOT succeed without Big Brother.
- I've never seen a "progressive" contend that if public support of private schools achieves better results than a public-only system, then they would support it. Why not? Because they care more about control than they do about results!

It is true that even "progressives" have not tried to abolished private schools entirely -- after all, what would they do without Sidwell Friends, or at the college level, Reed and Oberlin? But I have seen them argue for active discrimination against private school students in various ways. And there are several "progressives" I know personally who have argued that sending one's own child, at one's own cost, to a private school is immoral, and have actively shamed other parents for doing so.

So much for being "pro-choice"!