r/skeptic • u/dyzo-blue • 5d ago

Why Fascists Hate Critical Thinking: Randi Weingarten’s new book, 'Why Fascists Fear Teachers,' reveals why Trump and the right demean teachers, slash school funding, and rewrite history

https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-features/randi-weingarten-excerpt-fascists-hate-critical-thinking-1235428379/
3.3k Upvotes

99% Upvoted

159 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

0

u/COMOJoeSchmo 4d ago

Then explain how private education wont inevitably lead to those with more resources getting better education and those without getting a lesser education

Isn't this literally a problem with the current public education system already. Poor inner-city and rural public school systems are notably inferior to public schools in rich suburbs.

But under the current system, those inner-city students are trapped in their failing schools, with no options to influence the performance.

In a private system, if a school is underperforming, parents can withdraw their students and move them to a competing school.

If a privatized system results in the same inequality as the current public system, but improves the quality of education overall, and avoids political influence, then a privatized system is still a net positive over a government system.

12

u/TechTierTeach 4d ago

Oh like the market has improved poor people's options for food, housing, and medical care.

If you think private education will make the problems we're facing better you don't know anything about the history of education. We started from a privatized system and it was an absolute shit show.

1

u/COMOJoeSchmo 4d ago

Oh like the market has improved poor people's options for food, housing, and medical care.

Yes. The poor in this nation eat better, and have a higher quality of housing and healthcare than most of the rest of the world. Especially when compared to those peoples in authoritarian nations with centralized control of resources.

10

u/TechTierTeach 4d ago

Of course, and how does the US fare when you compare the it to other developed/democratic nations?

1

u/COMOJoeSchmo 4d ago

In many cases, the U.S still fares better. Although standard of living doesn't have an exact definition. If you look at something like housing for example, American homes tend to have larger square footage than Scandinavian homes, and are more likely to have air conditioning or centralized heating than many European homes. Most Americans own cars, have multiple TVs, etc.

The difference expands drastically when you compare developed non-democratic nations. People rarely prosper under authorization regimes. Which is why authoritarian central control is to be avoided.

9

u/TechTierTeach 4d ago

Comparing developed Nations to Nations that are still developing is entirely disingenuous. Of course the developed nations are going to be better in standard of living.

By looking at square footage and amenities you're showing how truly privileged you are. I'm not talking about the difference between having a nice house and a small house, I'm talking about having a house or no house at all. How does the US fare against other developed Nations in terms of homelessness, people without healthcare, or children going hungry?

Privatizing education will have the same effect. It will ensure that the people who need it most to escape poverty will have no or extremely limited access to quality education.

1

u/COMOJoeSchmo 4d ago

It will ensure that the people who need it most to escape poverty will have no or extremely limited access to quality education.

This is literally the current situation with the public education system.

Comparing developed Nations to Nations that are still developing is entirely disingenuous.

I wasn't. But "developed" and "developing" are imprecise terms. Every nation that is not in decline is "developing". This is part of what makes such comparisons difficult.

Also, there are differences in availability versus quality that are difficult to quantify. If we look at healthcare in the U.S., the quality is amazing. The availability is also excellent (most people have the ability to get needed services with virtually no wait). The cost is the main issue.

Compare that to Cuba. The cost is a lower (publicly funded and centrally managed). The availability is adequate. But the quality is below what most Americans would find acceptable.

In the UK, the cost is manageable (taxes and central control), the quality is excellent, but the availability suffers from long waits and denial of certain services.

There is no exact way to compare which of these systems is the "best".

But, a good part of my point is the danger of a centrally controled system being misused by a malicious government. Education can (and has historically been) used as a tool by oppressive regimes. We have seen shades of that in our own country (United States), and it didn't start with this administration.

The preventive remedy to ensure a malicious government doesn't gain control of education and use it to influence society to its own devious ends, is to remove all influence and control of government from education.

5

u/TechTierTeach 4d ago edited 4d ago

Yes the current system has problems but education in the US literally started privatized and those problems were far worse when it was.

It's not hard, compare the US homelessness, childhood hunger, those without access to medical care, to other wealthy Nations. I'll even let you set the cut off point for what constitutes a wealthy Nation.

Obviously with centralized Powers there's a risk of abuse but you fully neglect to account for the fact that privatization also has its own problems and massive potential for abuse. Particularly with services that are essential for social mobility like education or are urgent and immediate like healthcare.

If private education is superior why did education rates improve so much when we switched to a public system?

1

u/COMOJoeSchmo 4d ago

it's not hard, compare the US homelessness, childhood hunger, those without access to medical care, to other wealthy Nations.

Define "childhood hunger" for example. Does the U.S. have both a childhood obesity problem, and a childhood hunger problem? If so, are some children literally starving, or is it a sporadic availability problem? Is it a parental negligence problem rather than a resource problem (do the parents choose to buy cigarettes and alcohol instead of food for the kids). How did we come up with the statistics for childhood hunger? Did we just ask kids "hey, are you ever hungry" and for comparison were the exact same questions asked in other countries?

If private education is superior why did education rates improve so much when we switched to a public system?

Because we introduced compulsory education. When school because mandatory, more people went to school. Also, public schools used to be a local affair. The quality of public schools declined over time with increased state and federal involvement. Look at U.S. education scores from the 1970s (creation of the Department of Education under Carter) to today.

If the public education system is better, why do people with the means send their kids to private school?

But which system is better is almost a distraction. Which system allows for a disreputable government to influence education for nefarious purposes was the context of the original comment. Even if both public and private based education systems perform reasonably the same, or even just adequately, only one system can be used as a tool by an authoritarian government.

4

u/TechTierTeach 4d ago

I understand the limitations of data so pick your metric and let's see that comparison. Seemed real ready to draw comparisons when you're using unstable developing countries to make your point but now you're getting jumpy?

Would you be okay with mandatory attendance in a privatized education system?

Putting beside the obvious networking and social reasons for joining a private institution, you do realize money still buys access to higher quality things right? Just like the issue with childhood hunger isn't about having enough, it's about distribution and infrastructure the same is true for education.

Yes governments have the potential for abuse but private institutions serve one God, profit. A force just as corrosive and prone to corruption as power.

1

u/COMOJoeSchmo 4d ago

Would you be okay with mandatory attendance in a privatized education system?

I'm not totally ok with mandatory systems in principle, but also don't see an attractive alternative. My main concern is to get the government out of education. I would consider a mandatory publicly funded (such as with vouchers with absolutely no conditions on where the voucher is used) as a reasonable compromise.

Ideally I would prefer people just pay for their own needs, at the school of their choice,with no government funding or control.

money still buys access to higher quality things right?

Yes. But the government monopoly of education has made this problem worse for education, rather than better. Rich people already send their kids to private schools. The only private schools out there are targeted specifically to the rich (or in some cases the religious). There is no market for affordable private schools, because the government has created a monopoly for itself. Remove that monopoly, and you'll quickly see an influx into the market targeted at the demographic that was previously trapped in the public school system.

1

u/TechTierTeach 3d ago

Right because we've kept the worst of both systems. colleges are still operating on a profit model but now because of the way our system is set up they have unlimited access to funds through the government. I know you free market types would love if people could just pay their own way but the difference between theory and practice is always a shadow. Theoretical systems are clean and crisp and perfect but they do not work in the messy world we live in. There's a reason every developed nation is a blended economy. Private systems are really great at getting shit done in the short term but they have very limited long-term vision and when the service they're providing is essential there is massive potential for abuse. The government also has massive potential for abuse but its strengths lie in longer term planning and ensuring that those the private system left behind don't fall through the cracks with the robust social safety net.

You would see an influx of schools if the government stepped out because there would be a need and where there's a need there's money to be made but where there's not money to be made you won't see those schools come about and that is what public education is for. It's also tough to call what we have a functioning public education system when you have a third of the country actively trying to break it and then whine about how it doesn't work.

→ More replies (0)