Arizona: The Gift That Keeps On Giving

[CapitalistSwine]

http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/...eeps-on-giving/

[Capitalism Forever]

Anything taught in "public" schools is inherently politicized. It is the owner of the school that gets to decide what to teach and how, and the owner in this case is a political entity.

The arguments in these debates are typically based on the implicit premise that there is a "right" or "just" way to form a public school curriculum--but there is no right or just way to practice tyranny. Whatever you are being taught, a class in a public school is the government's way of telling you what it wants you to believe, and an exam in a public school is the government's way of enforcing what it wants you to believe.

[softwareNerd]

Within the context of public schools, the act is sensible. Basically, it says that cultures/racial-differences can be taught as long as they do not "advocate ethnic solidarity instead of the treatment of pupils as individuals". The act does not try to insert GOP-style christian stuff (like the recent attempt to replace Jefferson with Calvin).

The main provisions from the act are:

Prohibits a school district or charter school from including in its program of instruction any courses or classes that:

• Promote the overthrow of the United States government.
  
• Promote resentment toward a race or class of people.
  
• Are designed primarily for pupils of a particular ethnic group.
  
• Advocate ethnic solidarity instead of the treatment of pupils as individuals.
  

and...

States that this act cannot be construed to restrict or prohibit:

• Courses or classes for Native American pupils that are required to comply with federal law.
  
• The grouping of pupils according to academic performance, including capability in the English language, that may result in a disparate impact by ethnicity.
  
• Courses or classes that include the history of any ethnic group and that are open to all students, unless the course or class violates this act
  

.

The "native american" thing is objectionable, but that's probably put in there so as not to run foul of Federal law.

I only wish other Arizona laws were similarly anti-racist. The little good that might be done by a law like this will be undone by the immigration law that pushes people to think inn racial-terms, and pushes "ethnic Mexicans" into the arms of the vilest of anti-American Mexican nationalists.

Edited May 19, 2010 by softwareNerd

[Jake_Ellison]

Within the context of public schools, the act is sensible.

I disagree. In a free country, I would have every right to have my child taught a curriculum especially designed for any ethnic or racial group my heart desires, and advocating solidarity with anyone my heart desires, as long as that curriculum did not constitute child abuse.

The reason for that is very simple: what my child is being taught is my business, not yours or anybody else's. I can't imagine how the context of socialized education changes that premise, and suddenly makes it so the right person to decide what my children should be taught is the governor of Arizona, not myself.

Even though the government does steal my money, and then sees fit to return some of it by paying for the education, in a public school, of my child if I decide to have one, I still would prefer it if I had as much say as possible in what that education is. And I would also prefer it if ethnic Mexicans had a say, in their children's education.

In other words, if politicians must rob people, I would prefer it if they would stick to robbing people of their money, instead of insinuating themselves into the parent-child relationship as well, while citing the context of them robbing people in the first place as justification.

[softwareNerd]

I disagree. In a free country, I would have every right to have my child taught a curriculum especially designed for any ethnic or racial group my heart desires, and advocating solidarity with anyone my heart desires, as long as that curriculum did not constitute child abuse.

I agree. Public schools should be shut down.

This does not preclude a discussion of what public schools ought to do while they exist.

[Jake_Ellison]

I agree. Public schools should be shut down.

This does not preclude a discussion of what public schools ought to do while they exist.

They should assume the parents are the ones paying for the service they provide (since they pretty much are, only in a manner that is extremely unfair), and act accordingly: they should seek to satisfy the demands of consumers (by having many different types of schools in each city, which are funded and expanded or closed depending on the numbers of people willing to enroll their kids there).

What they shouldn't do is try to impose a single curriculum on everyone. Any such curriculum is just a tool for the majority (the same majority which saw fit to impose socialized education in the first place) to impose its will on everyone. Aside from the obvious fact that this causes children to receive an education very different from what parents want (which is a fascist move, plain and simple), it also makes for an extremely poor performance.

So even from a practical standpoint, in the absence of a true free market, if schools would at least be allowed to compete for students (especially bright students), that would create some better performing schools. There are European countries in which the school system works this way, and even in the absence of actual monetary rewards for the school managements and teachers which perform well, this minimal competition is enough to create elite middle and high schools, which are in high demand and can select both students and teachers based on ability. (or even other criteria, such as math skills vs. literature, biology, etc. , to allow for some degree of early specialization). Obviously, part of the reason is tradition (those schools have been around for 5-6 centuries at times), but they are state funded, and can only exist because they are allowed some degree of independence and parents are allowed to enroll their children into any school willing to take them, if they don't mind the distance.

[softwareNerd]

So even from a practical standpoint, in the absence of a true free market, if schools would at least be allowed to compete for students (especially bright students), that would create some better performing schools.

Some such structural reforms could make the system better than what we have today; but, that's really not what this thread is about.

When evaluating whether a government-run school is doing the right thing, in the context of the a system that ought not exist at all, one must use rationality as a standard. The majority vote of parents and/or children can be used in decisions that are optional, but the majority may not enforce legitimately irrational values on the students.

Edited May 19, 2010 by softwareNerd