December 26, 2004
-
Been playing around on Wiki some more…if I was a college student, I’d be applauded for being so studious, for wanting to learn so much, for questioning and challenging myself. Funny how since I’m not a student, and I’ve “graduated from learning,” as it often feels, pursuing independant learning is looked at by many as an oddity. Just another strange observation of our culture.
Anyways…I’ve been bouncing around several topics. Here’s what I’ve learned.
Politically…I’d describe myself as a social democrat. I’ve grown up w/ capitalism, and I think it has a lot of problems. That pretty much fits in with the philosophy of social democrats. How can we have a more humane form of capitalism? That’s what it’s all about.
Whose political views are fairly representative of being an SD? Michael Moore’s name came up, someone I’ve grown to respect. While acknowledging the various criticisms of Moore, (just trying to get rich, un-patriotic, a liar), I feel comfortable saying he is true to the SD philosophy of pointing out the ills of capitalism and working to improve. His story is interesting too. He won a seat on his school board as a high school senion on a platform to fire the principal and vice-principal, and they eventually did resign. Moore was fired as editor of the magazine Mother Jones because he criticized an article that he viewed to be too critical of the Sandistas in Nicragua. He filed a lawsuit for wrongful dismissal, won $58,000, and went on to use that money to produce his first documentary, Roger & Me. He also worked for one of the most famous public advocated, Ralph Nader.
On the Socialist Democrats USA website, there’s an essay on public education by Sandra Feldman, the president of the United Federation of Teachers (at least back in ’99 when this was written) I found these two paragraphs very helpful in understanding how an SD philosophy plays out today in education:
“I am not against the market economy. (There was a time in my childhood when I was, but now I am not.) The market economy certainly has been good for America. But the market economy is not good for all its citizens. It does not work for everybody. In poor neighborhoods, for example, you don’t find these huge, beautiful, shining supermarkets that you find in the suburbs. Instead, you find some 7-11 or some dirty grocery stores. The market economy has not provided this choice for poor people. I don’t know why — I’m not an economist. But I notice that poor people, especially poor children, don’t get the kind of health care that wealthier people get; they just don’t get it. The market economy has not provided this.
So we have to decide what we want government to take responsibility for. Government should not take responsibility for making sure that companies make a lot of money, or for regulating the whole global economy. But there are certain things that government must take responsibility for, and public education is one of them. If you want to educate all of your country’s children, rich and poor, then government must assume the responsibility. The market will not do this. The Road Ahead – the union must change.”
http://www.socialdemocrats.org/NewApproachesinEducation.html
A quality education for all cannot be guaranteed through a private system of education. However, can a public system succeed in educating its students. Just as corporate media will have a bias towards a free-market, doesn’t government run schooling ensure a pro-government Patriotic bias in our schools?
Ironically for those who support privatization because of the US’s lagging behind other nations in test scores, the “best,” educational systems are found in those countries that have a form of socialized education. Among the top 4, Cuba, Canada, Finland and Korea.
The following article I found on indymedia, and they found it in Workers World.
http://www.stlimc.org/front.php3?article_id=17896&group=webcast
Here’s a part I want to show you:
“Cuba, a relatively underdeveloped coun try of 11.2 million people, spends 10 to 11 percent of its GDP on education, by far the highest ratio of any country in the world. Finland, the next closest, spends 6 percent.
Cuba’s educational system is mandatory through the ninth grade, free to all at all levels including higher education and “promotes the whole individual (including physical education, sports, recreation and artistic education) while explicitly linking education with life, work and production.” This is done through what Cubans call emulation, a form of competition where the group works together to win as a collective.
The study calls Cuba’s educational feats “impressive.” Less than 10 years after the revolution, it had reduced illiteracy by 40 percent, achieving a 96.9 percent literacy rate. Its pupils-to-teacher ratio is now 13.5 in primary school and 15 for all levels of education.”
So…for those who support the free-market for education, the evidence shows that we’d be better off digging deep and trying to build our public schools, following the lead of our favorite countries, like Cuba and Canada.
Comments (11)
Highly interesting. TIMSS (google it) suggests we’re doing better now (at least in science and math) than in 1995 (but No Child Left Behind could drag us back down soon. My comment, not TIMSS’s.) I haven’t seen those figures for Cuba before, and they’re really incredible. Now, if only we’d elect a President who’d be willing to spend 10-11% of the budget on education…
Good for you for taking the time to study this and bring this information to us. I didn’t really know anything about Social Democracy by that name but I’m a big Michael Moore fan for one thing.
Wikipedia rocks Dan. I am by no means the reverant follower that you are (psychopath) but it is super-fun!
Cuba man! It’s more than just cigars and “Dirty Dancing 2: Havana Nights”
Wanna check out a cool article on Iraq? It’s written by Sadam Hussein’s only American defense lawyer. http://dcregistry.com/users/IraqWar/
What makes Cuba more impressive is this: Starting in 1959 as an uneducated, unhealthy American colonial possession (only partly politically but absolutely economically), they have built a society with the highest literacy rate, the longest lifespans, and the lowest infant mortality rate in the Western Hemisphere. Now, do I like their politics? Hell no. But there is absolutely no doubt that 95% of Cubans are better off economically, educationally, and health-wise than they were under “capitalism.” The other 5% have all fled to Florida where they have forced the absurd American policies toward Cuba.
Cuba does this a couple of ways: Like Germany school in Cuba is a day-long event that includes sports, homework time, socializing, meals and medical care. Like all industrialized nations except the US, health care is universally available and free. Unlike almost anywhere else they have created a pay scale that rewards the people important to a society’s progress. In Cuba teachers, doctors, and university professors are at the top of the pay pyramid. In the US the top of the pay scale is occupied by people who neither work nor contribute anything (the Bush family, Michael Eisner, etc), jocks, and entertainers. While we pay stockbrokers (a profession with absolutely zero value to society) 100 times what we pay teachers, Cuba’s best and brightest are pulled toward education. That’s using economic incentives to move a nation forward.
I was going through the Ben Harper blogring, and the description of your site sums-up perfectly a wonderful conversation I had last night with two of my best friends. I subscribed to you, I really enjoy reading you, and your ideas.
Frenchi
something to check out, maybe? http://www.culturevulture.net/Books/OneMarketUnderGod.htm
and just to throw in my two cents (when have I resisted that opportunity?), cuba may be great at getting people into education, but once you have a job, you are forced to do what the gov’t says. My mother worked with a bunch of cuban refs and hearing their stories (they and their families are all educated and fairly wealthy Cubans, so this is our target audience, if you will) is like listening to Holocaust survivors talk. Not being able to move (internally and externally) without letting the government know, not being allowed to talk to anyone (no phone calls, etc) when on a business trip. I mean their education policy may be fantastic, but they need to work on their social graces a bit. It’s like bloody Orwell out there!
We over here in America are so quick to read a theory (socialism, communism) and say it’s beautiful, but it’s not until you look at the practice and talk to the residents that you can truly understand something. There are no freedoms. And they may have higher education but what are they learning? Are they banned from anything? We can value their education system’s attempts at reaching everyone, but we have to fully review their policies before we laud them. Is this education really moving the nation forward? Can it? I’m sure Castro has ensured that certain things are banned (I vaguely remember reading an article in Spin 5 years ago about a band in Cuba that wasn’t allowed to play or travel because it was a hard rock band). So essentially you have highly educated people who aren’t allowed to use their education unless it’s something the government approves. That’s totalitarianism, not freedom. That’s government rule, not proletariate equality.
On the flipside – I have nothing to say about Canada.
I think daraiseurotrash helps reveal one of our problems: Americans, when looking at the world, tend to see things only in giant packages, then only as “good” or “bad.” This is why we saw Spain under Franco as “good:” though is was horribly repressive, it was anti-Communist. We see Cuba as “bad,” repressive, Communist, and so can’t imagine that any of the choices they make are good.
Corporate Capitalism and Democracy have nothing to do with each other. They may be linked in this country, but Pinochet’s Chile was unarguably capitalist and Socialist Germany is undeniably democratic. Cuba’s education system most closely matches Germany’s. Our internal economic policies most closely match those of third world dictatorships.
Now, in a Democracy you can’t necessarily just establish pay scales like Cuba does, but tax policy can strongly alter market forces. What if there were dramatic tax benefits to becoming a teacher, a cop, a firefighter, a paramedic, a doctor, and dramatic tax disincentives to becoming a stockbroker? Would we re-direct some of our best and brightest? Right now we do the opposite: the tax code is designed to reward those who do not work instead of those who do (dividend income is taxed at a much lower rate than work).
There’s also this lesson I learned a long time ago from a great college prof: Totalitarian governments, he said, invest the bulk of their resources in children – this builds loyalty to the state of course. Democracies invest the bulk of their resources in those who can contribute to political campaigns and those who reliably block vote – thus rich, old people get most of the benefits of government, and children – non-voters all – get nothing. That is a long term crucial mistake, for which we will pay dearly.
I agree immensely with your last post. Clearly, things have gotten out of hand when arguably, our most important professions are finanancially the least lucrative to take. It has taken private projects (i think it’s private funding) such as Teach for America to create some incentive for college grads to consider teaching in a poor urban and rural schools, however, Teach for America does not nearly address the growing crisis. It seems there is a large system in place that drives people away from the jobs that we most need qualified employees. Obviously, we can use more qualified teachers than money managers, but, business continues to be the leading area of study by college students because they’re aware of the potential riches that can be earned. Perhaps your solution is a good one, have the government recognize national priorities through taxing some form or work and giving incentives to others. Several law schools now will allow students to pursue social justice or other forms of law that are low paying, and in exchange they will excuse their debts. A few summers ago, I interned in criminal defense, and while there is clearly a need for quality defense lawyers to represent the accused, even those who believe in the cause will be financially driven elsewhere.
Education is a public good. By definition, free markets alone will inefficiently provide it. But I think federal education spending on K-12 education is a colossal mistake. Not least of all, because it has shown to be practically money flushed down the drain (appeared in the Wall Street Journal, May 2003. You’re comparing our education system largely with countries less than a tenth our size, both in terms of population and size. Even Canada has a much smaller population than us, which lives in a much more concentrated area.
The examples of efficiency of smaller countrues should logically lead you to the conclusion that the most efficient way to provide education is on the state and local levels. In addition, states will be able to learn from each other which combination of public and private elements work, how much should be spent on vouchers, how much should go to support private schools, how best to allocate money to public schools, and the most efficient models will be copied. Some money should probably be allocated to the poorest states, and poorest regions as a subsidy, but this would not require federal expenditure on a scale anywhere close to what we have now.
Wow! thatliberalmedia wants to redistribute income! Hallejuyah! Even the most right-wing guy here understands the need to shift money from the wealthy to the “poorest states.” I’ll count this comment as a huge win.
The other half is just funny though. He wants states to learn from each other, but thinks we can’t learn from Canada. If we can’t learn from Canada what could New York possibly learn from Maryland? Well, obviously all can learn from each other. Size has very little to do with anything. Small districts in New Jersey are copying New York City’s plan to eliminate middle schools. Cuba (small) and Germany (very large) have very similar (and very successful) school systems.
And the myth (promoted heavily by propaganda pamphlets like the Wall Street Journal whose editorial policy is simply the expansion of investor profit at all costs) will always tell you that government is inefficient. The readers of the Wall Street Journal only make money off of government programs if the government is massively in debt or if those programs pay private companies to do their work (why the WSJ is such a big Bush II fan). Medicaid, for example, has HALF the overhead cost of private health insurance. Federal aid to education, for example, heavily funds special education (which is inefficient to the right-wing because it would probably be more efficient to kill the disabled), and special education has made an incredibly dramatic difference in people’s lives. Federal Education Spending has also funded hundreds of thousands of pilot programs educators learn from. It has transformed science education from almost non-existent. It has made huge differences in rural education.
But perhaps politically I’m making a mistake. Perhaps I should oppose federal taxation. Without it the economies of almost every Red State would collapse, the workforces in every Red State outside of Ohio would be worthless because those education systems would return to cranking out illiterates. New York, California, Illinois, New England would again achieve the complete dominance they held pre-New Deal and World War II. All that saved cash would allow the Blue States to fully socialize, making themselves even more competitive (if simply by absorbing health care costs). This would all hasten the break up of the US and the realignment of North America. And maybe that’s the best we can do these days.
I don’t know if you bothered to click the link in my previous post on the word drain, but if you did, you would see a chart of federal spending on education doubling from $250 million to $500 million from ’93 to ’03, and in the same time, reading scores stayed absolutely flat. To tell the truth, I’m pretty much praying you didn’t click the link, because if that’s what you call efficient, I would hate to see what you would call inefficient. Your tirade against WSJ can’t change the facts.
I said Canada may not be a reliable model to copy. It may be, though, let’s let a few states adopt it and see. Why are you so insistent that the entire country must go thought the experiment. Also, I would not expect California to learn from Rhode Island, which I believe is akin to the entire US adopting a Canadian model.
Finally, ot be clear, I don’t consider paying for public goods redistributing income. We all benefit when people are educated. Education is largely non-rival and non-excludable.