3 ms·

"Currently [...] teachers [...] occupy a strong position in the social order. So do government dependents." [Emphasis added] Interesting --maybe I'm misunderst

by gone35 12y ago

"Currently [...] teachers [...] occupy a strong position in the social order. So do government dependents." [Emphasis added] Interesting --maybe I'm misunderstanding your claim. Can you clarify what you mean by "occupy a strong position in the social order", and outline your evidence for such a belief?

yummyfajitas 12y ago
Witness how difficult and ineffective policies to ensure accountability for teachers and eliminate the bad ones are. Consider the difficulty in reducing dependency programs (e.g., SS, Medicare) - these are political non-starters due to old people voting. On the cultural front, note how difficult it is even to criticize teachers or government dependents. Consider the media reaction when Romney correctly pointed out that about half the population is at least partly dependent on the government, or how right wing politicians are described as "attacking" teachers when they propose anything the educational establishment dislikes. Or think for a moment about any policy which might reduce the status of either group - for example, partially replacing teachers with machines, or shaming people on welfare. How do you think such a policy would be received?
- Frondo 12y ago
  Very nearly 100% of the people living within U.S. borders are dependent on the government, whether in the form of tax subsidies or use of government-built services. I'm sure many people of a certain ideological stripe feel as though they're somehow self-reliant and do not rely on anything any level of government provides, but that does not mesh with reality. As for shaming people on welfare, I'm again unsure which country you're describing. First, "welfare" (i.e. as a cash grant) hasn't existed in the U.S. in close to 20 years. Second, people who do receive some sort of subsidized food or housing are very nearly universally looked down upon. They're not held in any esteem whatsoever now. Do you think it would be reasonable, or make any kind of policy sense, to shame them further? If so, why?
  - blfr 12y ago
    Very nearly 100% of the people living within U.S. borders are dependent on the government, whether in the form of tax subsidies or use of government-built services. He means net payments to/from the government, not using the roads.
  - areyousure 12y ago
    It is my understanding that Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) is a cash benefit. Do you not consider TANF in the U.S. to be "welfare" in the form of a cash grant?
- dragonwriter 12y ago
  > Witness how difficult and ineffective policies to ensure accountability for teachers and eliminate the bad ones are. I've yet to see any policy sold under that banner that had any reason to believe it would achieve that end: all have either been proposals to increase the degree of arbitrary latitude granted elected politicians and appointed administrators and/or policies imposing measures as standards that have no demonstrated validity as measuring teacher performance as distinct from other factors that might affect the students in that teacher's classroom, including (particularly) the degree of administrative support for that teacher. Usually, most proposals have included both of those features. I haven't opposed them because teachers oppose them -- though no doubt they do -- I oppose them because I am opposed to wasting public money on measures that have no rational expectation of success and I am opposed to decreasing accountability for school administrators. > Or think for a moment about any policy which might reduce the status of either group - for example, partially replacing teachers with machines, or shaming people on welfare. How do you think such a policy would be received? The latter with well-deserved derision from much of the public (and plenty of support from most of the right, probably), the former would depend on the specifics -- plenty of functions teachers have done have been partially replaced by machines over the years with broad support.
- gone35 12y ago
  Ah ok, thank you. If I understood correctly, you take "occupy a strong position in the social order" to mean a group's strong enfranchisement and entrenchement, up to the point of closure within the political culture (in the Almond-Verba technical sense of the term). My only quibble with treating "welfare recipients" as a group is it conflates two quite heterogeneous groups of people: seniors/retirees in one hand, and disabled people plus medicaid/food aid/SCHIP recipients on the other. The former do account for the majority of welfare spending and quite justifiably fit (my understanding of) your definition of "strong position in the social order" in the sense of strong enfranchisement; but the latter hardly do.

by gone35 12y ago

yummyfajitas 12y ago

Witness how difficult and ineffective policies to ensure accountability for teachers and eliminate the bad ones are. Consider the difficulty in reducing dependency programs (e.g., SS, Medicare) - these are political non-starters due to old people voting. On the cultural front, note how difficult it is even to criticize teachers or government dependents. Consider the media reaction when Romney correctly pointed out that about half the population is at least partly dependent on the government, or how right wing politicians are described as "attacking" teachers when they propose anything the educational establishment dislikes. Or think for a moment about any policy which might reduce the status of either group - for example, partially replacing teachers with machines, or shaming people on welfare. How do you think such a policy would be received?

Frondo 12y ago
Very nearly 100% of the people living within U.S. borders are dependent on the government, whether in the form of tax subsidies or use of government-built services. I'm sure many people of a certain ideological stripe feel as though they're somehow self-reliant and do not rely on anything any level of government provides, but that does not mesh with reality. As for shaming people on welfare, I'm again unsure which country you're describing. First, "welfare" (i.e. as a cash grant) hasn't existed in the U.S. in close to 20 years. Second, people who do receive some sort of subsidized food or housing are very nearly universally looked down upon. They're not held in any esteem whatsoever now. Do you think it would be reasonable, or make any kind of policy sense, to shame them further? If so, why?
- blfr 12y ago
  Very nearly 100% of the people living within U.S. borders are dependent on the government, whether in the form of tax subsidies or use of government-built services. He means net payments to/from the government, not using the roads.
- areyousure 12y ago
  It is my understanding that Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) is a cash benefit. Do you not consider TANF in the U.S. to be "welfare" in the form of a cash grant?
dragonwriter 12y ago
> Witness how difficult and ineffective policies to ensure accountability for teachers and eliminate the bad ones are. I've yet to see any policy sold under that banner that had any reason to believe it would achieve that end: all have either been proposals to increase the degree of arbitrary latitude granted elected politicians and appointed administrators and/or policies imposing measures as standards that have no demonstrated validity as measuring teacher performance as distinct from other factors that might affect the students in that teacher's classroom, including (particularly) the degree of administrative support for that teacher. Usually, most proposals have included both of those features. I haven't opposed them because teachers oppose them -- though no doubt they do -- I oppose them because I am opposed to wasting public money on measures that have no rational expectation of success and I am opposed to decreasing accountability for school administrators. > Or think for a moment about any policy which might reduce the status of either group - for example, partially replacing teachers with machines, or shaming people on welfare. How do you think such a policy would be received? The latter with well-deserved derision from much of the public (and plenty of support from most of the right, probably), the former would depend on the specifics -- plenty of functions teachers have done have been partially replaced by machines over the years with broad support.
gone35 12y ago
Ah ok, thank you. If I understood correctly, you take "occupy a strong position in the social order" to mean a group's strong enfranchisement and entrenchement, up to the point of closure within the political culture (in the Almond-Verba technical sense of the term). My only quibble with treating "welfare recipients" as a group is it conflates two quite heterogeneous groups of people: seniors/retirees in one hand, and disabled people plus medicaid/food aid/SCHIP recipients on the other. The former do account for the majority of welfare spending and quite justifiably fit (my understanding of) your definition of "strong position in the social order" in the sense of strong enfranchisement; but the latter hardly do.