From: brian@quake.sylmar.ca.us (Brian K. Yoder)
Subject: Re: Why can't the liberals just admit that public education has failed?
Organization: Quake Public Access
Date: Mon, 25 Jan 1993 13:18:39 GMT

In article <00727748110@elgamy.jpunix.com> elg@elgamy.jpunix.com (Eric Lee Green) writes:
>From article <C15IMC.8t3@quake.sylmar.ca.us>, by brian@quake.sylmar.ca.us (Brian K. Yoder):
>> Your implicit demand that resources be
>> "redistributed" away from those who earned it is an excellent example of
>> the liberal view that most problems are caused by a lack of "fair
>> distribution of reasources" and that "redistribution" from the worthy to
>> the unworthy is the cure-all for any problem.  Admit it!  That just
>> doesn't work!
 
>My view is that children are children, 
 
What a revelation.  For once we agree.  Children are children.
 
>and that ALL children have earned a good education 
 
What in the world do you think it means to earn something?  Do you
attribute any specific meaning to the words you write?  Or are you
just trying to write something that sounds good?  Earning something 
requires that one take actions which produce some effect one 
rightly deserves (for better or worse...a thief can earn a jail term
just as much as a factory worker can earn a paycheck.
 
It is the case that it is GOOD for all children to get a good education,
just like it is good for them to have good food, good medicine, good
clothing, and good entertainment.  I do think it is good for children 
to have all of these things, but I think it is the responsibility of the 
parents to provide these things.
 
Just to make my point perfectly clear, I think it is good for everyone to
have a fulfilling sex life, but it does not follow from that position that
it is my  responsibility or my wifes to provide this to whoever needs it.
 
>-- not just those who were lucky enough to be born to
>wealthy parents.
 
When did I ever say that only the wealthy ought to get a good education?
The poor and middle class ALREADY pay for their education, and they
get little for their money.  I am a big fan of universal education for the
young...Im just opposed to government forcing people to subsidize it
and providing it.  Outside of opposing fraud, the government has no
place in the education system at all.
 
>When I was a kid, there was a critical turning point at around 12 years
>old. I was very angry at the world. The world wasn't fair. I hadn't done
>anything to deserve being poor. 
 
Look, you are BORN poor!  Your early life quality is determined by your
parents, not society.  Poverty is a default condition which needs to be
worked out of, not something society imposes on some.  The question
is whether you (or your parents) did anything to deserve being rich.
 
Actually, by the standards of any previous age, your family was probably
very well-off (if you had running water, electricity, TV, and a car, you lived
better than 95% of the rest if humanity).  I came from rather humble
beginings myself, but I dont resent my early position as you seem to.
 
>Yet the city around me seemed designed to
>punish me for being poor 
 
Punish you?  How?  By not allowing you to take the property you and your
parents have not earned?  Yes, it would be nice if we could by
some magic get whatever we want without doing what is necessary 
to produce it, but to insist on something for nothing is self-delusion.
 
>-- when I had nothing to do with me being poor. I
>did not, after all, choose my parents.
 
But they did choose you, and you are their responsibilty.  If they fail
to create the wealth necessary to raise you, it is THEIR fault, not mine.
 
>It would have been very very easy to turn to a life of crime at that point.
 
Why?  Because you want to take what others have created without 
their permission?  It seems you still want that.
 
>Luckily, this was before crack cocaine and the drastic decline in central
>city conditions that took place during the Reagan/Bush years. Today, I
>don't know what choice I'd make. I know what choice some of my students are
>making, though. One of my students just joined a gang.
 
I assume you think thats a abad choice.  I agree.  What do you think makes
that a bad choice?
 
>All simple behavioral psychology. 
 
Since Im not a fan of behavioral psychology, Im not likely to be impressed.
 
>Middle-class kids behave (generally) because there are rewards for good 
>behavior. 
 
Really?  Dont you think it also has something to do with the better 
parenting skills of middle-class parents (which conveniently enough
as also the same skills needed to hold down a good job).  Do you not
think that poor kids actually can look toward MORE rewards than the
middle-class kid?  If a poor kid gets a part-time job, his disposable
income rises a relatively large amount.  If a middle-class kid does the 
same thing, he merely suppliments the larger stream of goodies hes
already getting.  If a poor kid does well in class, hell likely get all kinds
of financial aid to go to college, while the middle-class kid cant get
academic scholarships unless hes Albert Einstein.  If the poor kid 
gets a good job when he gets out of school, his standard of living 
will rise a lot.  The middle-class kid will just be holding steady (or
actually sliding from his previous home situation).  
 
Just what rewards do you think middle-class kids get that poor
kids dont?
 
>There is high grades in school, going to a good college, getting 
>a good job, etc. 
 
Are these things you think poor kids are incapable of getting?
 
>If a kid doesn't see any such rewards in his future, he won't behave. 
 
I think whether a kid behaves or not has a lot more to do with short-term
expectations by parents, teachers, and peers, than by long-term rewards, 
particularly for young kids.
 
>He'll find some other
>way of getting rewards -- like joining a gang. Simple. 
 
No, simplistic.
 
>All you have to do
>is pick up _About Behaviorism_ and read a couple of chapters. 
 
Behaviorism works fairly well as a way of understanding the behaviors
of animals, but it ignores human free will and reasoning.  Try reading
_Beyond Freedom and Dignity_  (by B.F. Skinner) if you want to see 
where that view leads.
 
>Organisms
>attempt to maximize the positive rewards in their environment. In my case,
>my father was utterly convinced that I was college material. Thus I saw the
>path to maximizing positive rewards as being college. 
 
As I said, the expectations of those around you are more important in your 
earlier behavior than your poverty.
 
>If I hadn't had that
>implicit faith behind me, I doubt that I would have fought and struggled my
>way through those years. 
 
So again, it was attitude, not income that determined your success.
 
>I would have probably made the same choice as some
>of my students -- join a gang and enter a life of crime. Organisms attempt
>to maximize the positive rewards in their environment. If all other routes
>are cut off by poor educational system and abuse, they'll choose crime.
 
Sure...a government-run school system is likely to generate criminal
activity because its so bad.  
 
I find it curious that you feel the need to appeal to biology or behaviorism
in order to explain this.  This is a matter of sociology, not biology.
 
>You can pay now, or pay later -- by paying for their jail cells.
 
You are not examining all of your premises.  One is that socialized education is
the only way for poor kids to become educated.  Another is that socialized
education is ever a good way of educating children.  Another is that any kind
of education is likely to reduce crime.  Another is that it is my responsibility to
pay for the maintenance of others whether I want to or not.
 
>It costs over $50,000/year to incarcerate a prisoner. The
>$4,000-$5,000/year for a good education is a bargain by comparison -- but a
>bargain that too many in the suburbs seem to wish to deny to those in the
>inner cities. 
 
I doubt you could find ANYONE who would want to deny a good education
to anyone.  What you will find is people who do not want to carry
everyone else on their backs.  Are you seriously proposing that the
only choice for people is to be cared for by strangers or to become a 
criminal?  Are you serious?
 
>But they sure do enjoy paying for those prisons...
 
I would rather toss a criminal in jail than send him to college.  The former
is justice, the latter is an injustice.
 
--Brian