Although not related to your current column, I did want to write about "school choice" a misleading label. I wrote the following in May, 2014:
In recent years we have seen the rise of the charter school, a generally private educational institution exempt from most state laws and regulations, but which, nevertheless, receives public funds, and is viewed as a competitor or alternative to the traditional public school. How did this come about and is it a good idea? For me, a more relevant question is whether charter schools should be publicly supported? And for me, the answer is no.
The idea of public education perhaps should be traced to Charlemagne (742-814 C.E.). Although academies and schools certainly precede Charlemagne’s reign, the idea of compulsory education emanating from the governing authority did not exist before to my knowledge. Charlemagne, in his Capitulare de Litteras Colandis (787), requires clergy to teach reading and writing to the community. Charlemagne says, “Take care to make no difference between the sons of serfs and freemen so that they may come and sit on the same benches to study grammar, music, and arithmetic.” Quite amazing for his time that one may say that the period scholars would label as the “dark ages” ended with Charlemagne. Charlemagne recruits teachers from England and Ireland, and among them is Alcuin the Latinist, who had already founded schools and a great library in York. Alcuin teaches at the royal palace where Charlemagne and his family attends classes, thereby leading by example that royals were not above learning. By the 12th century, the liberal arts are developed (grammar, rhetoric, logic, arithmetic, music, geometry, and astronomy). The idea of the university (from the Greek universitas – assembly of students) forms. Although there were academies with specialized subjects such as medicine and law, for the first time the predecessor to the modern university is created; a place devoted to a disciplined and systematic form of study not unlike that found among the classic Greek philosophers.
In America, the idea of compulsory education and public education grows over time and by 1900, 34 states had compulsory schooling laws, only four of which were in the south. By 1910, 72% of American children attended school and by 1918, every state required students to complete elementary school. A significant reason for public schooling was a response to the influx of immigrants and schooling was a means to establish social cohesion and shared learning leads to a shared culture.
There is a great benefit to a nation that has an educated populace – both politically and economically – and, thus, it is in a nation’s best interests to make education available to its citizens. Public education, that is, government making elementary and high school education freely available to all and compulsory for all, is in the best interests of a government and an investment well worth making.
With as large a compulsory public school system as we have in America, there will be some schools that perform better than other schools. There can be myriad reasons for differences in performance and the usual culprits are differences in resources and the socio-economic backgrounds of students. Although Malcolm Gladwell in his book Outliers, The Story of Success, that the achievement gap in educational performance between rich and poor is more a function of the availability of educational stimuli during vacations rather than school’s failure to educate. Schools as scapegoats seems prominent in aspects of society and certainly in politics. The cry of schools failing our young people is common, even though we rarely analyze whether and the extent to which such statement is true or not or the causes of poor learning.
One argument in favor of charter schools is that they will create innovation and foster competition and, thus, be an engine to drive improvements in all schools. The idea is that if parents can choose the schools for their children, local schools will need to provide better education or go out of business. The flaw in this argument is that public schools, unlike private businesses for profit, do not have profit as their purpose, but, rather, the education of all persons who are entitled to attend the school. Public schools must do their best to educate the children who enter their doors. Unlike quality control managers who can dispose of inferior materials, a school cannot jettison students who lack the skills necessary for learning. No one questions the benefits of adopting best practices, and innovation in the field of education is helpful, but the draining of resources from public schools to charter schools hinders or prevents the public school from adapting new methods. However, little innovation seems to be occurring in charter schools.
While some charter schools may provide specialized education or curriculum, most charter schools are intended to provide at least as good or better education than traditional public schools and to deliver such education more cost effectively. Whether charter schools deliver a better education is a hotly debated topic. A posting on Wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charter_schools_in_the_United_States, states the following:
According to a study done by Vanderbilt University, teachers in charter schools are 1.32 times more likely to leave teaching than a public school teacher. Another 2004 study done by the Department of Education found that charter schools "are less likely than traditional public schools to employ teachers meeting state certification standards." A national evaluation by Stanford University found that 83% of charter schools perform the same or worse than public schools (see earlier in this article). If the goal is increased competition, parents can examine the data and avoid the failing charters, while favoring the successful charters, and chartering institutions can decline to continue to support charters with mediocre performance. [Footnotes omitted.]
When public-school students enrolled in Texas’ largest charter program open their biology workbooks, they will read that the fossil record is “sketchy.” That evolution is “dogma” and an “unproved theory” with no experimental basis. They will be told that leading scientists dispute the mechanisms of evolution and the age of the Earth. These are all lies.
The more than 17,000 students in the Responsive Education Solutions charter system will learn in their history classes that some residents of the Philippines were “pagans in various levels of civilization.” They’ll read in a history textbook that feminism forced women to turn to the government as a “surrogate husband.”
Responsive Ed has a secular veneer and is funded by public money, but it has been connected from its inception to the creationist movement and to far-right fundamentalists who seek to undermine the separation of church and state.
Infiltrating and subverting the charter-school movement has allowed Responsive Ed to carry out its religious agenda—and it is succeeding. Operating more than 65 campuses in Texas, Arkansas, and Indiana, Responsive Ed receives more than $82 million in taxpayer money annually, and it is expanding, with 20 more Texas campuses opening in 2014.
Charter schools are not a panacea of educational innovation and excellence. There is little if any public oversight. Charter schools should be viewed as another form of private school available for those who wish to avail themselves of it. It is illogical for government to subsidize charter schools just as it would be illogical for government to subsidize other forms of private schools.
Voucher programs, that is giving vouchers to parents who may then use them to lessen the cost of enrollment in private schools is an indirect form of subsidy for charter and other private schools. A voucher program is sometimes said to be giving parents greater choice (and who isn’t pro-choice, at least, in education), but this distorts the question to be addressed.
Government rightly provides for a public education and all citizens may freely avail themselves of it. However, all citizens may opt out of the public school system for other alternate school choices, i.e., private schools, but the government need not and should not subsidize such choice. It is not a question of giving citizens more choices (citizens already have all these choices). Rather, it is a question of who pays for such choices. The government is saying, in effect, “you may send your children to the community public school at no cost to you. However, you are free to send your children to a private school and, if you do so, you will be responsible for the cost of attendance at that school.”
People send their children to private schools for many reasons – perception of better education; better curriculum; greater activities; religious focus; greater resources; status; etc. But, regardless of the reason, taxpayers should not subsidize such choice.
[1] See, e.g., Anderson, Jeanne, “The Revolution Against Evolution, or ‘Well, Darwin, We’re Not in Kansas Anymore,’” 29 Journal of Law and Education (July 2000).
Jonathan - I have always been a Democrat nearly at the left edge of acceptable thought in the USA or beyond, for example, that communism would be a great system if human beings were less selfish, and will work one day for the entire human race when we are adults. I joined The Bulwark as a paid member because of my contempt for DJT and everything he stands for - himself, maybe his family if they toe the line, anything else? My experience here on thebulwark.com has renewed my faith, at least partially, in the possibilities of the goodness of the human race. We can get along, make sacrifices when needed, see what will work and be the best for all of us. I thank you, JVL, along with Charlie, Mona, Tim, all of you who feel like a new family to me. Keep up the good work!
Re apps - My phone is a phone to make a few calls, occasionally text and take pictures (that I found out will NOT be uploaded by the computer!); it is not a computer. My computer is a computer; it is not a phone. And never the twain shall meet. No wonder people complain about their phone costs.
I have a master's degree in computer science. Your phone is a thousand times more powerful than the computers I worked with for decades. Your phone is a computer. You may choose not to take advantage of its capabilities, but your phone is a computer.
The last time we had widespread political violence in the US I take to be the 60's/70's. Although you can easily argue the violence was widespread, as I remember things there was a difference in character between the "right" violence (big ticket assassinations) and the "left" violence (mob violence and surreptitious bombings). So: three questions: 1. Any theories as to why the difference? Or, alternatively, am I wrong about the difference? 2. Do we expect things to go the same way this time 'round? 3. Why did the violence abate in the 70's/80's?
Regarding a chat on Substack, I think chat is part of the problem. We have lost community as a nation. I have a radical proposal: the Bulwark Discussion Community: interactive small groups have biweekly discussions through google meet. Pairing 8 bulwark subscribers from different parts of the country to discuss various topics. Many groups, of course. Not sure how it would be organized. I adored looking around the live DC event and finally seeing all these thoughtful fellow Americans. Live google meets would let us exercise this civil discourse face to face, building stronger community ties.
Thanks JVL for keeping up the message here on civility and on the Thursday live streams. Someone once said that anything you tell me while shouting I could have easily heard if you used a calm voice. Once we shout and yell any good point is lost. I think the same holds true for civil public discourse. The moment people resort to name calling, bullying and demonizing, any good message gets destroyed and can be ignored. In fact I think anyone who resorts to that is showing disrespect not only to the listener but to their own argument.
I like the idea of a chat group, but I already struggle enough in keeping up with the articles and podcasts here that I can't see getting more engaged than I already am.
I haven't yet figured out why some Bulwark content has a button for comments and no obvious way for some other things, including Syles' Morning Shots and Bulwark Podcast. shieldoftherepublic@gmail.com wants comments by email, but that means we can't see what other readers have to say.
I would consider installing the substack app if accessing Bulwark content thru it gave a consistent way to read and leave comments.
I endorse this comment! If Bulwark+ can handle almost 300 comments on this edition of The Triad, it can handle comments on its all its other blogs and features.
Intolerance-all--nearly always starts in the home. Parents demonstrate, reinforce one-another's prejudices or knee-jerk reactions, kids carry on. Often, further support comes from community, friends, classmates. But the beginning---only parents can ameliorate these horrors.
Triad is the specific newsletter your are reading, written by Jonathan v. Last. Bulwark is a conglomerate of many different writers, who produce many different regular newsletters all under the Bulwark umbrella.
On the impending announcement: When Trump runs DeSantis will keep his shadow campaign operational just in case some thing happens and the Trump train gets derailed.
He will NOT in a million years make a direct challenge to Trump because of the primary season of 2016. Trump essentially extinguished their political careers within the Republican Party. DeSantis is a young man. He has years to cultivate his own following while riding in the caboose of the Trump/MAGA train. Nothing would be more toxic, and career ending, than to confront Trump directly in the current environment. My theory is DeSantis keeps his powder dry--- tries to build his reputation as a competent Governor (whatever that means in the current GOP)--- and then spring into full campaign mode in 2026. He will have had two terms as governor, and two years to suck up to President Trump before 2028 rolls around.
I think DeSantis can hold up in a 2028 campaign against Vice President Marjorie Taylor Greene and Senators J. D. Vance and Dr, Oz.
I have never read the comments but there have been plenty of times I’d like to comment but never did. Probably cuz I was racing to get to work on time. I like the chat idea because I think I’ll need a group of rational people to get me through the next week and beyond. I can’t wait for the midterms to be over and I fear what’s on the other side. Sigh
Re: your last comment that there will always be crazy people and that we have lots of guns: True and true. But since since medical science is not yet able to fix mental illness it is incumbent on us as a society to reduce dramatically the number of guns in circulation. Every sensible person knows this, and sensible people far outnumber gun-crazed people, yet politically we are paralysed by the fierce reaction of the gun lovers whenever there is the slightest hint of a gun control proposal. I guess it's an example of the line in Yeats wonderful poem The Second Coming that says... "The best lack all conviction, while the worst are filled with passionate intensity..."
The only solution I can envision is a massacre so terrible that the sensible people rise up in revulsion. But I don't know what that massacre would have to be, if murdering 20 little children and their teachers isn't enough.
I have to say that, while I have the Substack app on my phone and use it occasionally, I don't find it either intuitive or user-friendly. I suspect that it's trying to serve too many masters at once. Or, it may just be that I haven't made the time to dedicate to it yet that would make me an effortless power user. Maybe the chat function will motivate me to do better.
Although not related to your current column, I did want to write about "school choice" a misleading label. I wrote the following in May, 2014:
In recent years we have seen the rise of the charter school, a generally private educational institution exempt from most state laws and regulations, but which, nevertheless, receives public funds, and is viewed as a competitor or alternative to the traditional public school. How did this come about and is it a good idea? For me, a more relevant question is whether charter schools should be publicly supported? And for me, the answer is no.
The idea of public education perhaps should be traced to Charlemagne (742-814 C.E.). Although academies and schools certainly precede Charlemagne’s reign, the idea of compulsory education emanating from the governing authority did not exist before to my knowledge. Charlemagne, in his Capitulare de Litteras Colandis (787), requires clergy to teach reading and writing to the community. Charlemagne says, “Take care to make no difference between the sons of serfs and freemen so that they may come and sit on the same benches to study grammar, music, and arithmetic.” Quite amazing for his time that one may say that the period scholars would label as the “dark ages” ended with Charlemagne. Charlemagne recruits teachers from England and Ireland, and among them is Alcuin the Latinist, who had already founded schools and a great library in York. Alcuin teaches at the royal palace where Charlemagne and his family attends classes, thereby leading by example that royals were not above learning. By the 12th century, the liberal arts are developed (grammar, rhetoric, logic, arithmetic, music, geometry, and astronomy). The idea of the university (from the Greek universitas – assembly of students) forms. Although there were academies with specialized subjects such as medicine and law, for the first time the predecessor to the modern university is created; a place devoted to a disciplined and systematic form of study not unlike that found among the classic Greek philosophers.
In America, the idea of compulsory education and public education grows over time and by 1900, 34 states had compulsory schooling laws, only four of which were in the south. By 1910, 72% of American children attended school and by 1918, every state required students to complete elementary school. A significant reason for public schooling was a response to the influx of immigrants and schooling was a means to establish social cohesion and shared learning leads to a shared culture.
There is a great benefit to a nation that has an educated populace – both politically and economically – and, thus, it is in a nation’s best interests to make education available to its citizens. Public education, that is, government making elementary and high school education freely available to all and compulsory for all, is in the best interests of a government and an investment well worth making.
With as large a compulsory public school system as we have in America, there will be some schools that perform better than other schools. There can be myriad reasons for differences in performance and the usual culprits are differences in resources and the socio-economic backgrounds of students. Although Malcolm Gladwell in his book Outliers, The Story of Success, that the achievement gap in educational performance between rich and poor is more a function of the availability of educational stimuli during vacations rather than school’s failure to educate. Schools as scapegoats seems prominent in aspects of society and certainly in politics. The cry of schools failing our young people is common, even though we rarely analyze whether and the extent to which such statement is true or not or the causes of poor learning.
One argument in favor of charter schools is that they will create innovation and foster competition and, thus, be an engine to drive improvements in all schools. The idea is that if parents can choose the schools for their children, local schools will need to provide better education or go out of business. The flaw in this argument is that public schools, unlike private businesses for profit, do not have profit as their purpose, but, rather, the education of all persons who are entitled to attend the school. Public schools must do their best to educate the children who enter their doors. Unlike quality control managers who can dispose of inferior materials, a school cannot jettison students who lack the skills necessary for learning. No one questions the benefits of adopting best practices, and innovation in the field of education is helpful, but the draining of resources from public schools to charter schools hinders or prevents the public school from adapting new methods. However, little innovation seems to be occurring in charter schools.
While some charter schools may provide specialized education or curriculum, most charter schools are intended to provide at least as good or better education than traditional public schools and to deliver such education more cost effectively. Whether charter schools deliver a better education is a hotly debated topic. A posting on Wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charter_schools_in_the_United_States, states the following:
According to a study done by Vanderbilt University, teachers in charter schools are 1.32 times more likely to leave teaching than a public school teacher. Another 2004 study done by the Department of Education found that charter schools "are less likely than traditional public schools to employ teachers meeting state certification standards." A national evaluation by Stanford University found that 83% of charter schools perform the same or worse than public schools (see earlier in this article). If the goal is increased competition, parents can examine the data and avoid the failing charters, while favoring the successful charters, and chartering institutions can decline to continue to support charters with mediocre performance. [Footnotes omitted.]
Some of the rise of charter schools is because of a clash of religion and culture and the fear that public schools fail to teach “right” values.[1] Thus, in some areas, charter schools are parochial schools in disguise. An article by Zack Kopplin, Texas Public Schools Are Teaching Creationism, at http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/science/2014/01/creationism_in_texas_public_schools_undermining_the_charter_movement.3.html, begins as follows:
When public-school students enrolled in Texas’ largest charter program open their biology workbooks, they will read that the fossil record is “sketchy.” That evolution is “dogma” and an “unproved theory” with no experimental basis. They will be told that leading scientists dispute the mechanisms of evolution and the age of the Earth. These are all lies.
The more than 17,000 students in the Responsive Education Solutions charter system will learn in their history classes that some residents of the Philippines were “pagans in various levels of civilization.” They’ll read in a history textbook that feminism forced women to turn to the government as a “surrogate husband.”
Responsive Ed has a secular veneer and is funded by public money, but it has been connected from its inception to the creationist movement and to far-right fundamentalists who seek to undermine the separation of church and state.
Infiltrating and subverting the charter-school movement has allowed Responsive Ed to carry out its religious agenda—and it is succeeding. Operating more than 65 campuses in Texas, Arkansas, and Indiana, Responsive Ed receives more than $82 million in taxpayer money annually, and it is expanding, with 20 more Texas campuses opening in 2014.
Charter schools are not a panacea of educational innovation and excellence. There is little if any public oversight. Charter schools should be viewed as another form of private school available for those who wish to avail themselves of it. It is illogical for government to subsidize charter schools just as it would be illogical for government to subsidize other forms of private schools.
Voucher programs, that is giving vouchers to parents who may then use them to lessen the cost of enrollment in private schools is an indirect form of subsidy for charter and other private schools. A voucher program is sometimes said to be giving parents greater choice (and who isn’t pro-choice, at least, in education), but this distorts the question to be addressed.
Government rightly provides for a public education and all citizens may freely avail themselves of it. However, all citizens may opt out of the public school system for other alternate school choices, i.e., private schools, but the government need not and should not subsidize such choice. It is not a question of giving citizens more choices (citizens already have all these choices). Rather, it is a question of who pays for such choices. The government is saying, in effect, “you may send your children to the community public school at no cost to you. However, you are free to send your children to a private school and, if you do so, you will be responsible for the cost of attendance at that school.”
People send their children to private schools for many reasons – perception of better education; better curriculum; greater activities; religious focus; greater resources; status; etc. But, regardless of the reason, taxpayers should not subsidize such choice.
[1] See, e.g., Anderson, Jeanne, “The Revolution Against Evolution, or ‘Well, Darwin, We’re Not in Kansas Anymore,’” 29 Journal of Law and Education (July 2000).
Jonathan - I have always been a Democrat nearly at the left edge of acceptable thought in the USA or beyond, for example, that communism would be a great system if human beings were less selfish, and will work one day for the entire human race when we are adults. I joined The Bulwark as a paid member because of my contempt for DJT and everything he stands for - himself, maybe his family if they toe the line, anything else? My experience here on thebulwark.com has renewed my faith, at least partially, in the possibilities of the goodness of the human race. We can get along, make sacrifices when needed, see what will work and be the best for all of us. I thank you, JVL, along with Charlie, Mona, Tim, all of you who feel like a new family to me. Keep up the good work!
Tim Carmell, Anniston, Alabama
Re apps - My phone is a phone to make a few calls, occasionally text and take pictures (that I found out will NOT be uploaded by the computer!); it is not a computer. My computer is a computer; it is not a phone. And never the twain shall meet. No wonder people complain about their phone costs.
I have a master's degree in computer science. Your phone is a thousand times more powerful than the computers I worked with for decades. Your phone is a computer. You may choose not to take advantage of its capabilities, but your phone is a computer.
The last time we had widespread political violence in the US I take to be the 60's/70's. Although you can easily argue the violence was widespread, as I remember things there was a difference in character between the "right" violence (big ticket assassinations) and the "left" violence (mob violence and surreptitious bombings). So: three questions: 1. Any theories as to why the difference? Or, alternatively, am I wrong about the difference? 2. Do we expect things to go the same way this time 'round? 3. Why did the violence abate in the 70's/80's?
Regarding a chat on Substack, I think chat is part of the problem. We have lost community as a nation. I have a radical proposal: the Bulwark Discussion Community: interactive small groups have biweekly discussions through google meet. Pairing 8 bulwark subscribers from different parts of the country to discuss various topics. Many groups, of course. Not sure how it would be organized. I adored looking around the live DC event and finally seeing all these thoughtful fellow Americans. Live google meets would let us exercise this civil discourse face to face, building stronger community ties.
Thanks JVL for keeping up the message here on civility and on the Thursday live streams. Someone once said that anything you tell me while shouting I could have easily heard if you used a calm voice. Once we shout and yell any good point is lost. I think the same holds true for civil public discourse. The moment people resort to name calling, bullying and demonizing, any good message gets destroyed and can be ignored. In fact I think anyone who resorts to that is showing disrespect not only to the listener but to their own argument.
I like the idea of a chat group, but I already struggle enough in keeping up with the articles and podcasts here that I can't see getting more engaged than I already am.
I haven't yet figured out why some Bulwark content has a button for comments and no obvious way for some other things, including Syles' Morning Shots and Bulwark Podcast. shieldoftherepublic@gmail.com wants comments by email, but that means we can't see what other readers have to say.
I would consider installing the substack app if accessing Bulwark content thru it gave a consistent way to read and leave comments.
I endorse this comment! If Bulwark+ can handle almost 300 comments on this edition of The Triad, it can handle comments on its all its other blogs and features.
JVL. I trust you. I don’t trust any venue other than Bulwark. Call me jaded.
Intolerance-all--nearly always starts in the home. Parents demonstrate, reinforce one-another's prejudices or knee-jerk reactions, kids carry on. Often, further support comes from community, friends, classmates. But the beginning---only parents can ameliorate these horrors.
I’m new to Bulwark, like the idea a lot. No clue what Triad is.
Triad is the specific newsletter your are reading, written by Jonathan v. Last. Bulwark is a conglomerate of many different writers, who produce many different regular newsletters all under the Bulwark umbrella.
On the impending announcement: When Trump runs DeSantis will keep his shadow campaign operational just in case some thing happens and the Trump train gets derailed.
He will NOT in a million years make a direct challenge to Trump because of the primary season of 2016. Trump essentially extinguished their political careers within the Republican Party. DeSantis is a young man. He has years to cultivate his own following while riding in the caboose of the Trump/MAGA train. Nothing would be more toxic, and career ending, than to confront Trump directly in the current environment. My theory is DeSantis keeps his powder dry--- tries to build his reputation as a competent Governor (whatever that means in the current GOP)--- and then spring into full campaign mode in 2026. He will have had two terms as governor, and two years to suck up to President Trump before 2028 rolls around.
I think DeSantis can hold up in a 2028 campaign against Vice President Marjorie Taylor Greene and Senators J. D. Vance and Dr, Oz.
Sounds reasonable, including the dark predictions in the last paragraph.
I have never read the comments but there have been plenty of times I’d like to comment but never did. Probably cuz I was racing to get to work on time. I like the chat idea because I think I’ll need a group of rational people to get me through the next week and beyond. I can’t wait for the midterms to be over and I fear what’s on the other side. Sigh
Re: your last comment that there will always be crazy people and that we have lots of guns: True and true. But since since medical science is not yet able to fix mental illness it is incumbent on us as a society to reduce dramatically the number of guns in circulation. Every sensible person knows this, and sensible people far outnumber gun-crazed people, yet politically we are paralysed by the fierce reaction of the gun lovers whenever there is the slightest hint of a gun control proposal. I guess it's an example of the line in Yeats wonderful poem The Second Coming that says... "The best lack all conviction, while the worst are filled with passionate intensity..."
The only solution I can envision is a massacre so terrible that the sensible people rise up in revulsion. But I don't know what that massacre would have to be, if murdering 20 little children and their teachers isn't enough.
I like Cheney, but Repulicans won't vote for her. And a percentage of Democrats will not vote for her either.
I have to say that, while I have the Substack app on my phone and use it occasionally, I don't find it either intuitive or user-friendly. I suspect that it's trying to serve too many masters at once. Or, it may just be that I haven't made the time to dedicate to it yet that would make me an effortless power user. Maybe the chat function will motivate me to do better.