NAACP Tells Black Parents To Keep Their Kids In Crappy Schools As Leverage For Tax...

[Beaudreaux]

I saw this article listed on Real Clear Politics' home page yesterday, and it caught my eye. I read it, and did some research on the claims made in the article (why I'm just now posting it here), which all turned out to be accurate as far as I can tell. The only statement I thought that was a little hyperbolic was the "acting white" reference (you'll see what I mean if you read the entire article) which, although accurate as well, could have been described in a less inflammatory way, IMHO, if they were concerned that many progressives may have tuned out at that point. It didn't affect me that way, but I can see why it might to some that are more sensitive to such things.

Anyway, I thought this article was a very clear and pointing look inside the reasons for supporting Charter Schools, especially by the black community, and why the NAACP should reverse their official position against such schools for blacks in the US.

It also makes a reference to the author and article discussed in the thread started by Jack Hayes in this same subforum: http://www.debatepolitics.com/education/267429-charter-schoolings-first-25-years-post1066440469.html#post1066440469 which I recommend reading and discussing in Jack's thread as well.

Here's the article for this thread:

NAACP Tells Black Parents To Keep Their Kids In Crappy Schools As Leverage For Tax Hikes | The Federalist

By Joy Pullmann
October 18, 2016

Despite public resistance by black leaders across the political spectrum against this impending decision, the NAACP Saturday released yet another resolution condemning school choice and calling for a nationwide ban on new charter schools.

“The NAACP opposes privatization of public schools and public subsidizing or funding of for-profit or charter schools,” the organization said in a statement. “Privatization of public schools” is survey-tested union talk attempting to manipulate people into disliking the idea of a more diverse ecosystem of publicly funded education through mechanisms such as vouchers, education savings accounts, and charter schools. These allow all families to have the same opportunities to attend schools of choice, as rich families do.

A coalition of 160 black leaders pointed this out in an attempt to get NAACP to back off this resolution when it was first proposed this year: “A blanket moratorium on charter schools would limit Black students’ access to some of the best schools in America and deny Black parents the opportunity to make decisions about what’s best for their children.”

Unlike many Americans, of course, and particularly unlike African-Americans because of their higher levels of poverty, wealthy families can afford to pay taxes for public school plus tuition to private school, or buy their way into high-performing public school districts. The NAACP insists it instead wants all Americans to pay the eye-popping property and other taxes the rich do to fund local schools of comparable extravagance, and therefore black kids should be held hostage in poorly performing public schools as leverage to push for this political arrangement.

[...]

 

[Abbazorkzog]

Re: NAACP Tells Black Parents To Keep Their Kids In Crappy Schools As Leverage For Ta

What a pathetic way to manipulate and gaslight someone into participating in a political agenda based on the color of their skin.

 

[TheGoverness]

Re: NAACP Tells Black Parents To Keep Their Kids In Crappy Schools As Leverage For Ta

Wow. Really?

 

[ttwtt78640]

Re: NAACP Tells Black Parents To Keep Their Kids In Crappy Schools As Leverage For Ta

The idea that we need to keep funding crappy pubic schools, as part of the public education monopoly, to provide proof that taxes (on the rich) need to be raised is sickening. Just as paying a lousy carpenter more will not get them to build you a better house, shed or deck, paying a crappy school (or school district) more will not make them educate your kids any better. The job for life culture of public employees (and their unions) means that substandard pubic personnel will be kept and, in many cases, transfered/placed where the NAACP apparently wants them - in poor (black?) neighborhoods.

 

[Redress]

Re: NAACP Tells Black Parents To Keep Their Kids In Crappy Schools As Leverage For Ta

Wow. Really?

No, not really. It is a dishonest headline. The NAACP is arguing against public funding for private schools.

 

[Beaudreaux]

Re: NAACP Tells Black Parents To Keep Their Kids In Crappy Schools As Leverage For Ta

No, not really. It is a dishonest headline.

I would agree that it's a politically sensationalized headline, but not dishonest at all. I was required by forum rules to use the article headline as the thread title. What matters in this instance, is not the title, but the facts found within the article itself.

The NAACP is arguing against public funding for private schools.

How is that different, in the end result, to what the headline reads given the data shown throughout the article? You and I seem to agree on many, if not most, things. This may be one where we don't.

 

[Beaudreaux]

Re: NAACP Tells Black Parents To Keep Their Kids In Crappy Schools As Leverage For Ta

Wow. Really?

I think the answer is yes, and Redress thinks the answer is no. Read the article yourself, and come to your own conclusions rather than relying on others to tell you what to think. Although young, you're one the most intelligent members we have here when it comes to critical thinking skills and deductive reasoning, so I feel more than confident that you can see the facts for what they are.

 

[legalimmigrant]

Re: NAACP Tells Black Parents To Keep Their Kids In Crappy Schools As Leverage For Ta

Why do I have this feeling that if Asians or Jews didn't get a penny of state money or vouchers, their kids would still be going to Harvard and Yale.

Which, of course, makes me as despicable racist for just saying this.

 

[justabubba]

Re: NAACP Tells Black Parents To Keep Their Kids In Crappy Schools As Leverage For Ta

are black students more or less likely to be accepted into the superior charter schools which get to pick and choose who attends?

 

[ttwtt78640]

Re: NAACP Tells Black Parents To Keep Their Kids In Crappy Schools As Leverage For Ta

are black students more or less likely to be accepted into the superior charter schools which get to pick and choose who attends?

Even a slim chance is better than no chance.

 

[cpwill]

Re: NAACP Tells Black Parents To Keep Their Kids In Crappy Schools As Leverage For Ta

No, not really. It is a dishonest headline. The NAACP is arguing against public funding for private schools.

If this is the case I am thinking of, they are not. They are arguing against a tax break for people who donate scholarships to local underprivileged children.

Sent from my XT1526 using Tapatalk

 

[justabubba]

Re: NAACP Tells Black Parents To Keep Their Kids In Crappy Schools As Leverage For Ta

Even a slim chance is better than no chance.

these charter schools, the ones which are able to select the most able children to attend, draw their operating monies out of the public school system
that loss of funding then diminishes the public school system. one that cannot be selective and must provide for the most needy ... read the most expensive to teach
and since black students are less likely to be selected to attend the better charter schools, they are left to be educated in a less adequately funded public school
it is no surprise the NAACP objects to that unfortunate outcome

 

[ludin]

Re: NAACP Tells Black Parents To Keep Their Kids In Crappy Schools As Leverage For Ta

these charter schools, the ones which are able to select the most able children to attend, draw their operating monies out of the public school system
that loss of funding then diminishes the public school system. one that cannot be selective and must provide for the most needy ... read the most expensive to teach
and since black students are less likely to be selected to attend the better charter schools, they are left to be educated in a less adequately funded public school
it is no surprise the NAACP objects to that unfortunate outcome

This is simply false. The vouchers usually go to low income students which are usually minority students.
Nope it doesn't draw money out of the system.

The public school is already faili it can't get much worse than that.
Schools that enter the voucher system must accept the student awarded the vouchers.

The rest is just liberal rhetoric. The real question is why do you support keepi kids in a failing school.

 

[rabbitcaebannog]

Re: NAACP Tells Black Parents To Keep Their Kids In Crappy Schools As Leverage For Ta

these charter schools, the ones which are able to select the most able children to attend, draw their operating monies out of the public school system
that loss of funding then diminishes the public school system. one that cannot be selective and must provide for the most needy ... read the most expensive to teach
and since black students are less likely to be selected to attend the better charter schools, they are left to be educated in a less adequately funded public school
it is no surprise the NAACP objects to that unfortunate outcome

Plus they know that the rates of expelling or kicking out black kids from a charter are much higher than in public schools. The NAACP advocates for all black kids not just the crème of the crop. The vulnerable coming from poor dysfunctional homes are of much higher risk to get thrown out. These charter school supporters (rich and powerful) want to turn public schools into dumping grounds.

 

[Fiddytree]

Re: NAACP Tells Black Parents To Keep Their Kids In Crappy Schools As Leverage For Ta

Plus they know that the rates of expelling or kicking out black kids from a charter are much higher than in public schools. The NAACP advocates for all black kids not just the crème of the crop. The vulnerable coming from poor dysfunctional homes are of much higher risk to get thrown out. These charter school supporters (rich and powerful) want to turn public schools into dumping grounds.

I think it's worth noting there is a meaningful divide within the black community and many other minority communities over the primacy of traditional public schools.

Many black education reformers are pro-charters and antagonistic toward the traditional Democratic Party's stringent defense of teacher unions and a lack of choice.

 

[rabbitcaebannog]

Re: NAACP Tells Black Parents To Keep Their Kids In Crappy Schools As Leverage For Ta

I think it's worth noting there is a meaningful divide within the black community and many other minority communities over the primacy of traditional public schools.

Many black education reformers are pro-charters and antagonistic toward the traditional Democratic Party's stringent defense of teacher unions and a lack of choice.

It's important to note that they don't want change to be done to them or for them but with them. Nothing wrong with the democratic process in including them as part of the discussion. Whenever the union is a topic, it is by some corporate shrill who want to take over the schools. Other than that, it should not be a problem whether a union exist within a school or not unless it is looking for full control.

 

[Neomalthusian]

Re: NAACP Tells Black Parents To Keep Their Kids In Crappy Schools As Leverage For Ta

Whenever the union is a topic, it is by some corporate shrill who want to take over the schools.

Utterly absurd comment.

Other than that, it should not be a problem whether a union exist within a school or not unless it is looking for full control.

Any (any) organization permitted to exercise a coercive monopoly power is inherently problematic unless strictly regulated from the outside to keep said monopoly power in check.

 

[rabbitcaebannog]

Re: NAACP Tells Black Parents To Keep Their Kids In Crappy Schools As Leverage For Ta

Utterly absurd comment.



Any (any) organization permitted to exercise a coercive monopoly power is inherently problematic unless strictly regulated from the outside to keep said monopoly power in check.

It's NOT an absurd comment. The organizations that are calling for these corporate reforms are often times embedded with these corporate reformers.
Your monopoly power shtick won't work here.

 

[Neomalthusian]

Re: NAACP Tells Black Parents To Keep Their Kids In Crappy Schools As Leverage For Ta

It's NOT an absurd comment. The organizations that are calling for these corporate reforms are often times embedded with these corporate reformers.

You're talking out of your behind. Unions are talked about all the time, especially in the public sector where their activity is disproportionately high. The people talking about unions are not corporate shills looking to take over education. That is an insanely bizarre thing to say.

Your monopoly power shtick won't work here.

You call federal law a "shtick?" Knowing what federal law says and what words mean is not "a shtick." If you think monopoly power is a made-up shtick of a term, you're actively deluding yourself.

Just read 15 USC Chapter 1 - Monopolies and Combinations in Restraint of Trade, and think about why we passed laws against cartels/monopolies/trusts in the first place. What is the real conceptual underlying reason these things were made illegal and should remain illegal?

It was the monopolization of trade that gave rise to labor unions, because at one point in our history there were virtually no tools with which to combat the monopolists except by everyone forming their own monopoly in turn and fighting fire with fire, so to speak. But then we passed a law that sweepingly made the formations of cartels/unions/monopolies illegal, except we allowed it to be slipped in there (Clayton) this bit about labor not being counted as trade/commerce, and thereby exempting labor unions from all those very important new rules.

Fast forward 60 or so years, and suddenly there is this huge influx of union membership among government employees. What are government employee unions really fighting against? Corporate greed? Big profits and low wages? Government inherently has monopoly power, i.e. it is the only provider of what it provides, and it has full power over the taxpayers to levy taxes on them, whether they like it or not. Naturally monopolistic, and it has to be that way, that's how government works. Public unions are not fighting against the government's monopoly power, they're feeding off of it. Public unions enjoy their own monopoly power within the protective walls of the broader government's monopoly power. In public union negotiations, it's not a group of poor wage workers arguing with a rich equity owner. It's a public employee arguing with another public employee about how much to take from taxpayers who aren't in the room with them and won't get to vote on it. Public unions enjoy a sort of double-bonus from being able to wield their monopoly power at a table with public sector managers, especially given how much money these same public unions wrap back into politics to get pro-union leaders elected. As one public union boss (V. Gotbaum) unabashedly said back in the 1970s: “[W]e have the ability, in a sense, to elect our own boss.”

Normal, ordinary people will obviously try to benefit themselves and their families within whatever framework exists. That doesn't make those people "evil," but it still could be the case that the framework is corrupted and dysfunctional and unjust overall. When I say unions shouldn't exist, I don't say that just because I declare them to be "evil." I say it because of what they fundamentally are, and because I believe antitrust regulations are one of our country's very most important regulations. Regulating and prohibiting monopoly power is one of the absolute best purposes and functions of government. It doesn't matter if it's a corporation worth billions or a company worth a couple million -- monopoly power generally shouldn't exist unless strictly regulated, or unless it's part and parcel of government itself.

We can establish fair wages and working conditions in government positions by passing laws that establish that compensation. We can uphold qualifications, licensing and accreditation for performing some types of work by having government agencies do that. We should accomplish those things through government itself.

 

[rabbitcaebannog]

Re: NAACP Tells Black Parents To Keep Their Kids In Crappy Schools As Leverage For Ta

Yawn. Tired anti-union stuff. Unionized teachers make livable wages, not rich, but livable. Without teacher unions, teachers would make below the mean wages (mostly due to attitudes like yours). However, more importantly, they are allowed a voice at the table without being afraid that they will be fired for having an opinion or being activist in a community.

 

[MaggieD]

Re: NAACP Tells Black Parents To Keep Their Kids In Crappy Schools As Leverage For Ta

I saw this article listed on Real Clear Politics' home page yesterday, and it caught my eye. I read it, and did some research on the claims made in the article (why I'm just now posting it here), which all turned out to be accurate as far as I can tell. The only statement I thought that was a little hyperbolic was the "acting white" reference (you'll see what I mean if you read the entire article) which, although accurate as well, could have been described in a less inflammatory way, IMHO, if they were concerned that many progressives may have tuned out at that point. It didn't affect me that way, but I can see why it might to some that are more sensitive to such things.

Anyway, I thought this article was a very clear and pointing look inside the reasons for supporting Charter Schools, especially by the black community, and why the NAACP should reverse their official position against such schools for blacks in the US.

It also makes a reference to the author and article discussed in the thread started by Jack Hayes in this same subforum: http://www.debatepolitics.com/education/267429-charter-schoolings-first-25-years-post1066440469.html#post1066440469 which I recommend reading and discussing in Jack's thread as well.

Here's the article for this thread:

NAACP Tells Black Parents To Keep Their Kids In Crappy Schools As Leverage For Tax Hikes | The Federalist

Poor uneducated blacks are doomed.

 

[Neomalthusian]

Re: NAACP Tells Black Parents To Keep Their Kids In Crappy Schools As Leverage For Ta

Yawn. Tired anti-union stuff. Unionized teachers make livable wages, not rich, but livable. Without teacher unions, teachers would make below the mean wages (mostly due to attitudes like yours).

Bogus. All we'd need to do is pass a law. We could pass a federal law guaranteeing all public school teachers make not less than a specified percentage of the local median family income. The same law could also guarantee a certain minimum of benefits (retirement and health-related, probably). The issue would be settled forever. No further need for these unions to be bitching about it every 1-3 years. No need for unions period. The things unions "bargain" over could just be set by law for all public employees.

Why wouldn't Democrats support such a law? Oh right, because they are bankrolled by unions and unions do NOT want laws that fix the things the complain about, because it would permanently eliminate the excuses for their existence. What I don't understand is why Republicans don't propose laws that solve these "problems" for public employees, by standardizing their pay and eliminating the need for public sector "collective bargaining." This would force Democrats to go on the record opposing the things that they and unions claim to be championing.

I actually got a pro-teachers'-union person to admit what he thought was a fair basis for compensating teachers, and he agreed tying it to the local median would be the most fair, and I agreed with him and said "so let's pass a law that establishes exactly that" and suddenly he ran away from the conversation. He realized he had just agreed to something that undermines his sense of necessity for unions, and for whatever reason he didn't want to solve the problem because it would mean there wouldn't need to be a union anymore. Shows how blindly pro-union he was.

Everything single thing you think public employees need from their unions could painlessly be settled forever by law.

However, more importantly, they are allowed a voice at the table without being afraid that they will be fired for having an opinion or being activist in a community.

No government or other public employee should need "a voice at the table." This isn't the private sector where rich bosses profit and workers slave away. These are public employees on both sides of the "negotiating" table. The compensation can be set by law that guarantees its fairness as well as its transparency to the taxpayer who is paying for it.

 

[rabbitcaebannog]

Re: NAACP Tells Black Parents To Keep Their Kids In Crappy Schools As Leverage For Ta

Bogus. All we'd need to do is pass a law. We could pass a federal law guaranteeing all public school teachers make not less than a specified percentage of the local median family income. The same law could also guarantee a certain minimum of benefits (retirement and health-related, probably). The issue would be settled forever. No further need for these unions to be bitching about it every 1-3 years. No need for unions period. The things unions "bargain" over could just be set by law for all public employees.

Why wouldn't Democrats support such a law? Oh right, because they are bankrolled by unions and unions do NOT want laws that fix the things the complain about, because it would permanently eliminate the excuses for their existence. What I don't understand is why Republicans don't propose laws that solve these "problems" for public employees, by standardizing their pay and eliminating the need for public sector "collective bargaining." This would force Democrats to go on the record opposing the things that they and unions claim to be championing.

I actually got a pro-teachers'-union person to admit what he thought was a fair basis for compensating teachers, and he agreed tying it to the local median would be the most fair, and I agreed with him and said "so let's pass a law that establishes exactly that" and suddenly he ran away from the conversation. He realized he had just agreed to something that undermines his sense of necessity for unions, and for whatever reason he didn't want to solve the problem because it would mean there wouldn't need to be a union anymore. Shows how blindly pro-union he was.

Everything single thing you think public employees need from their unions could painlessly be settled forever by law.



No government or other public employee should need "a voice at the table." This isn't the private sector where rich bosses profit and workers slave away. These are public employees on both sides of the "negotiating" table. The compensation can be set by law that guarantees its fairness as well as its transparency to the taxpayer who is paying for it.

Your posts goes to show how little you know about the topic of teacher unions. When I stated it gives me a voice at the table it had nothing to do with negotiating wages. It had everything to do with advocating what policies work and don't work, and not being afraid when I speak out in my community that I will be fired for being actively involved in the discussion of what works and doesn't work in the classroom based on my experience. It is just one more voice at the table, and a very important one.

 

[Beaudreaux]

Re: NAACP Tells Black Parents To Keep Their Kids In Crappy Schools As Leverage For Ta

Poor uneducated blacks are doomed.

Exactly. It's sad. The NAACP and the Democratic Party care about the black community ONLY as far as the ballot box.

 

[rabbitcaebannog]

Re: NAACP Tells Black Parents To Keep Their Kids In Crappy Schools As Leverage For Ta

Exactly. It's sad. The NAACP and the Democratic Party care about the black community ONLY as far as the ballot box.

Since when is this a partisan thing? I believe the Obama admin. and many other democratic politicians have gone with corporate reformers.