The Red Queen gives an economics lesson in A quick and dirty primer on progressive macroeconomics
So first we are going to start with a basic macro system. It’s made up of 3 parts, the people, business, and government and it looks a bit like a triangle.
Stuff flows into and out of each part. People give their labor to business in exchange for wages and their money (wages) to business in exchange for goods and services. People and business give their money to the government in the form of taxes in exchange for services.
So far that’s all pretty basic econ stuff, here’s where the progressive part comes in.
Only one of these three parts is real. Only one part exists without the others.
So when economists or other “learned” men talk about the inevitability of economic things, like how a free market will regulate itself, they are lying. Free markets are not like water, they do not find their own level through physics or gravity or some natural force. They are created by people and do not exist without people and will only be as “good” as the people who create them.
Susan Jacoby thinks it is time to retire the word “moderate” when used to describe anyone’s political or religious views. I couldn’t agree more. The word can only tell us something about the person using it. It tells us nothing about the person being described.
The constant use of the word “moderate” begs the fundamental question, “Moderate in relation to whom or what?”. Is House Minority leader John Boehner a “moderate” because he does not personally carry a placard of Obama wearing a Hitler mustache, given that he does not denounce those images? Are Representatives Olympia Snowe and Susan Collins of Maine moderate Republicans–that is what they are always called by the media–because they didn’t reject Democratic Obama’s health care reform proposals at the outset of the process even though they voted with their party at the end? Is Democratic Sen. Max Baucus of Montana a moderate because he finally voted for the health care reform bill, even though he made sure right from the start that there was no possibility of a true public option? What would a moderate be in the Vatican today, as church officials debate how to repair their tattered cloak of moral authority without letting godless secular judges and juries determine the fate of pedophile priests? Would a moderate be a prelate who says the church should cooperate with civil authorities when asked to do so but not volunteer any information itself? On my scale of values, that isn’t a moderate in my book but a moral coward.
Since any scale of moderation depends on whether you happen to be running with wolves or sheep, it would be better to retire this word from political and religious discourse. To understand what a synthetic, media-driven term “moderate” has become, it is only necessary to reflect on how rarely we use the word in our personal lives. If someone asks me what another person is like, I might say, “She’s generous,” “She’s ambitious,” “She’s beautiful,” “She’s self-centered,” “She’s brilliant,” “She’s reliable,” or provide any number of descriptions of any number of qualities. What I can’t imagine saying is, “She’s moderate.” When a word means nothing in real life, it means nothing.
I’m still not sure what to think about the Race To The Top program, but I am honestly surprised that only two states actually got funding in the initial round. I am encouraged that these plans had to have broad support, but I’m concerned that it may be more of a “falling in line” to get federal funds rather than actual buy-in. Further, I’m concerned that the deciding factors appear to be (a) rewarding unrealistic goals (2 year turnaround? seriously?) and (b) giving charter schools carte blanche. Just like public schools, there are good charter schools and there are bad charter schools.
The grants come as states and school districts across the country strain to fill widening education budget gaps. Many states pushed through contentious legislation or agreed to other changes in order to qualify for the federal funds.
The administration said Tennessee and Delaware prevailed because they outscored the others by a fair margin.
Delaware, for instance, stood out for its overhaul plan that included a promise to identify the state’s worst-performing schools and then turn them around within two years. It also achieved high marks for giving extra bonuses to teachers and principals willing to work in the toughest, academically-challenged schools.
Lawmakers in Tennessee met twice in special session to pass new education laws. The state lifted its cap on the number of new charter schools, which are schools that are taxpayer funded but independently run.
Both Delaware and Tennessee have imposed new measures that base teacher pay and promotions partly on how well their students perform.
How is “perform” defined? Is it, “everyone must hit this mark” or is it “show individual improvement?” If the latter, then fine. As always, the devil is in the details.
UPDATE: Just caught this post over at My Sister’s Farmhouse.
Last night my husband and I considered the idea of inventing a school from scratch. What would be important to us? What would we demand from our brand new school?
This is what we came up with in about twenty minutes of discussion…
1. Kids who know how to think critically about material as it is presented to them.
2. Kids who know how to effectively communicate.
3. Kids who have skills that give them a competitive edge in the real world (foreign language springs to mind).
4. Kids who have a thorough knowledge of the scientific method.
5. Kids who have a healthy appreciation for and a curiosity about nature.
6. Kids who are problem solvers
7. Kids who have leadership skills.
8. Kids who love to learn.
As you can see, none of these things have anything to do with mastering a standardized test. Instead they have much more to do with developing a skill set that precedes the subject matter. We would want our brand new school to focus on using the brain – not filling the brain. We would to build a school that doesn’t treat education like a long boring game of trivial pursuit – but instead treats education like a breathtaking game of chess.
Word. Word. Word.
