[subego]

Originally Posted by reader50 

"ballot purity" was a phrase used in some news coverage. From the Colorado Supreme Court ruling, they reference:

I didn't see specific quotes from these sections, sorry. Probably because the litigants didn't challenge any parts of the CO Election Code.

Thank you! I think this is the relevant part:

https://casetext.com/statute/colorad...mes-on-ballots

(4) Any challenge to the listing of any candidate on the presidential primary election ballot must be made in writing and filed with the district court in accordance with section 1-1-113(1) no later than five days after the filing deadline for candidates. Any such challenge must provide notice in a summary manner of an alleged impropriety that gives rise to the complaint. No later than five days after the challenge is filed, a hearing must be held at which time the district court shall hear the challenge and assess the validity of all alleged improprieties. The district court shall issue findings of fact and conclusions of law no later than forty-eight hours after the hearing. The party filing the challenge has the burden to sustain the challenge by a preponderance of the evidence. Any order entered by the district court may be reviewed in accordance with section 1-1-113(3).

[Thorzdad]

TIL, in Missouri (and two other states) state law effectively (if not implicitly) prevents pregnant women from getting a divorce. Story here.

[subego]

If a pregnant woman files for divorce in Missouri, it can’t be finalized until she’s given birth.

Missouri divorce lawyers put on their websites that potential clients should expect a minimum of 6 months for a contested divorce.

“H” sought out an attorney when she was 6 months pregnant. I empathize with H for being unable to finalize her divorce before she gave birth, but this law had nothing to do with it.

[Thorzdad]

This is funny as hell...
Indiana appeals court uses Mike Pence’s religious liberty law to block abortion ban

I’ve no doubt Indiana’s supreme court will overturn this decision in a quick minute.

[Thorzdad]

So, OJ died this week.

Good.

[subego]

I’ve enjoyed the fake deathbed confessional tweets.

[Thorzdad]

Some conspiracy-theory nut immolated himself yesterday outside the courthouse where Trump’s trial is starting. What the actual fuck?

[reader50]

Natural Selection in action. I didn't bother to read what he was protesting about.

If he survives, I doubt he'll ever try fire again. Awful way to go, and quite slow.

[Thorzdad]

He died earlier today.

The only thing I’ve heard about what he was about was that he was deep into q-anon-type conspiracy theories.

[Thorzdad]

Apparently DeSantis zeroed-out arts funding in the new Florida budget.

[subego]

The state declaring “we approve of this art” never really sat well with me. Not enough to cause a scene, or to stop me from pursuing state funding, but it still feels wrong.

[OreoCookie]

Originally Posted by subego 

The state declaring “we approve of this art” never really sat well with me. Not enough to cause a scene, or to stop me from pursuing state funding, but it still feels wrong.

Why does it feel wrong? State-funded art makes art more accessible to the public. I was shocked how expensive concert tickets were in the US and Canada. In Germany and Japan, they were much more affordable, regular people could afford it.

Selectively (not) funding certain things is what governments do on a daily basis. School curricula and the like are also approved by government bodies. As long as citizens have a say, I don't see how this is a problem.

What is a problem is the thinking behind not wanting to fund the arts or infringing on academic freedom by attaching strings to state funding. This is a common theme amongst right-wing populists who want to punish people they see as being on “the other side” such as scientists and artists.

[subego]

I’m honestly not a fan of state education either, but we’re in more of a bind in that regard. Note that what goes into the state curriculum can be an incredibly contentious issue.

[Waragainstsleep]

Originally Posted by subego 

I’m honestly not a fan of state education either, but we’re in more of a bind in that regard. Note that what goes into the state curriculum can be an incredibly contentious issue.

Isn't that just because Republicans know that when you educate people properly they tend to stop being(voting) Republican?

[subego]

Eh… I’d say that’s a tad reductive.

Ultimately, school is indoctrination, so it stands to reason there are wildly divergent views on how to do it properly.



Full disclosure: was indoctrinated at a (private) hippy Montessori grade school, and a (private) high-school attached to a university.

[Laminar]

Is there a precedent for a state without state-sponsored or mandated K-12 education that flourished long term?

[subego]

Athens and Rome did okay considering. Sparta not so much.

I should make explicit despite my issues with public education, I don’t propose eliminating it. Like I said, compared to the arts, we’re in more of a bind.

[Laminar]

So no?

[subego]

So, goalposts moved? Scotsperson untrued?

[OreoCookie]

Originally Posted by subego 

Eh… I’d say that’s a tad reductive.

Why? If citizens decide they want to fund the arts, because it makes their lives more beautiful and meaningful, why no?

Originally Posted by subego 

Ultimately, school is indoctrination, so it stands to reason there are wildly divergent views on how to do it properly.

That's a, hmmm, weird take. Did you perceive going to school as being indoctrinated?

[subego]

The first comment you quoted isn’t about art, so the question below it doesn’t match subjects. Was this a mistake, or is there part of the question I’m not understanding?

Yes. Going to school is being indoctrinated. I was indoctrinated at school. No question in my mind.


Edit: I don’t think I perceived it much at the time, but it’s obvious in hindsight.

[Laminar]

Originally Posted by subego 

So, goalposts moved? Scotsperson untrued?

If you have to go back 3000 years to an entirely different culture, economy, and society to say, "Hey this idea has worked before!" why am I the one accused of fallacies?

It feels like when it comes to disregarding idealistic liberal ideas you're the ultimate pragmatist, but when it comes to defending ruinous conservative ideas now all of a sudden your head is in the clouds.

[subego]

Did my edit get lost?

Is elimination of public education the ruinous policy you wish me to defend? I explicitly don’t support that policy, so I’m not really in a position to defend it.

[Laminar]

Originally Posted by subego 

Did my edit get lost?

Is elimination of public education the ruinous policy you wish me to defend?

Any policy that in any way shape or form could drive further inequality in education.

[subego]

Quality of education per dollar is significantly poorer with public education compared to private. At least it was here last time I checked.

The conservative solution is to privatize.

As shockingly off-brand as it sounds for conservatives, I posit the intent behind this solution is better education.

If for whatever reason this solution wouldn’t produce the intended result, which is quite possible, my defense of the policy is the intent. Judge the person who offered the solution based on their intent.

[reader50]

Privatizing a public service often goes poorly. ie - the Post Office (steady rate increases, politicized policy makers) or prisons. In private prisons, I've read of inmates getting poorer (cheaper) food. So someone can pocket a share from the food budget.

Also, how do the occupancy quotas work? I've read private prisons are given a minimum guaranteed occupancy in their contracts, so they can budget accordingly and not go out of business. But what if the crime rate goes down? How is the state supposed to provide X-number of prisoners, if not enough people are getting charged with crimes? Would we be contractually obligated to say, felonize jaywalking? Give 30 days to people who block subego's driveway?

[subego]

Originally Posted by reader50 

Privatizing a public service often goes poorly.

Yes. When I noted privatization of schools might not produce the intended result, this is what I was referring to.

[andi*pandi]

Originally Posted by subego 

If for whatever reason this solution wouldn’t produce the intended result, which is quite possible, my defense of the policy is the intent. Judge the person who offered the solution based on their intent.

When Betsy Devos, who happens to a) be rich, and b) run private schools, gets appointed Secretary of Education and tries to defund public schools, so that everyone can go to her private schools instead... well... her intent stinks of self-interest.

One reason private schools can do better is funding. They can afford the newest computers and gadgets and their teachers don't have to buy crayons out of their own pockets.

The other reasons are privilege. Tommy's rich parents can afford tutors after Tommy gets home from pricey private school. Tommy's parents have jobs they can take time off work to help him with things, or go to events, to be more involved. Tommy gets all the food he needs. etc.

[OreoCookie]

Originally Posted by subego 

Quality of education per dollar is significantly poorer with public education compared to private. At least it was here last time I checked.

Correlation ≠ causation

Important factors in education are
- Involved parents
- Economic background of the parents
- Financial situation of the school/school district

In my experience at least, private schools have more than a leg up compared to public schools in all three. We have a great private school down the road from us (by all accounts), although we couldn't get a spot for our daughter. We live in a wealthy neighborhood, I have a good job and am involved in my kids' lives …

Since you mention “quality of education”, another big factor is how you measure success. This matters to me professionally as I am also educating future teachers at my new job. And I had a long discussion with the professor in charge of physics didactics about different ways to measure success. For example, he mentioned that if you measure success by the ability to recall knowledge, one German state (Bavaria) is doing very well. But if you use “how many students then decide to study physics”, they are doing much worse.

I don't think schools are easily judged by economic means, which is why I think schools should be publicly funded. If you want to judge a primary school and you use income, you have to wait for about 20–25 years until you can judge success. That's way too long for a feedback loop based on economic criteria and incentives. You could also ask whether economics should be the basis at all. Even companies have not always fared better when bean counters took over (Boeing comes to mind, MBAs took over when McDonnel-Douglas absorbed Boeing, but let Boeing keep the name …).

Originally Posted by subego 

The conservative solution is to privatize.

That's a uniquely American perspective. Conservatives in other countries don't have the same love for privatizing schools.

Originally Posted by subego 

As shockingly off-brand as it sounds for conservatives, I posit the intent behind this solution is better education.

From what I read it has more to do with ideology than wanting a better education. Teachers are perceived as left-wing who push Critical Race Theory on primary school students and so forth. This perception is not supported by the data, at least if you go by the respondees' self-identified political persuasions (taken from here:



The distribution of self-identified conservatives to liberals looks very balanced to me. The voting behavior skews in favor of Democrats by 14 points, but there is a sizeable share of educators who identify as Independents. Combining the two charts, this means that independents amongst educators must skew conservative. I reckon the difference might be due to how teachers view education policies of the two parties:

Originally Posted by edweek

Seventy percent give Republicans a “D” or an “F” for their handling of K-12 policy. Forty five percent give Democrats a “D” or “F.” Each party gets an “A” from only 1 percent of respondents.

[subego]

Originally Posted by OreoCookie 

Teachers are perceived as left-wing who push Critical Race Theory on primary school students and so forth.

Critical race theory is not discussed in this link.

Proposals to privatize schools long predate critical race theory.

[OreoCookie]

Originally Posted by subego 

Critical race theory is not discussed in this link.

I know my sentence was more of a summary of what I think is the perception in conservative circles. Moreover, I have previously linked to a law that cut funding from higher education if they taught CRT or other things conservatives dislike. My point was more about the mindset: there is a perception that schools are places where kids are, to use your words, “indoctrinated”, and conservatives certainly don't like what students seem to be learning. Not least because teachers are, on average, not as liberal as many conservatives believe.

Originally Posted by subego 

Proposals to privatize schools long predate critical race theory.

Sure. But momentum has grown, in part because of efforts like Common Core, the perceived “indoctrination” of kids with topics parents don't like or politically disagree with — and some astroturfing by people like Betsy De Vos.

[Laminar]

Originally Posted by subego 

Quality of education per dollar is significantly poorer with public education compared to private. At least it was here last time I checked.

The conservative solution is to privatize.

As shockingly off-brand as it sounds for conservatives, I posit the intent behind this solution is better education.

If for whatever reason this solution wouldn’t produce the intended result, which is quite possible, my defense of the policy is the intent. Judge the person who offered the solution based on their intent.

I am certain that privatizing education would provide a better education for a select few people while yanking resources away from the majority aka further increasing inequality.

The history of privatizing education in America is "I don't want my (white) kids going to school with the brown kids." All calls for education privatization happen in the context of this history. The majority of private education in America stems from either "I don't want my kids being dragged down by poor kids" or "I don't want my kids thinking the earth is older than 6000 years.

[subego]

This is why Catholic schools exist?

[Laminar]

Originally or currently?

[subego]

Your choice.

[Laminar]

I don't know if it's true nationwide, but the demographics of the Catholic schools in Iowa lean heavily white and wealthy.

Does mass privatization of schools (not eliminating entirely) grow inequality?

[subego]

I would imagine it would depend on the implementation. The big beef I hear about is it’s difficult to button up the system from exploits. It also doesn’t address shitty parenting.

[Laminar]

Is there an example of a modern society that implemented mass privatization of schooling in a way that didn't grow inequality?

[subego]

A privatized school which serves students better than the public equivalent is growing inequality by definition, no? Why would we privatize unless it conferred some form of advantage to those students participating in the program? If a privatized school doesn’t create inequality, meaning it performs no better or even worse than a public school, the privatized school has no reason to exist.

[reader50]

They're likely chosen for perceived quality, teaching the 3 Rs that matter: Religion, Right-wing values, and superior Race. Without mentioning any alternative viewpoints or opinions, of course.

I'd be more impressed if there were lots of private schools that used normal teaching standards, just with higher budgets. But the majority of private schools seem tailored for one or another fanatic group.

[Laminar]

Originally Posted by subego 

Why would we privatize unless it conferred some form of advantage to those students participating in the program? If a privatized school doesn’t create inequality, meaning it performs no better or even worse than a public school, the privatized school has no reason to exist.

Privatized school can exist for several reasons, "some form of advantage" doesn't necessarily mean a higher quality education or higher academic achievement or better college placement or better career opportunities or a strong local economy or better local economic opportunities. It could be because parents want a different kind of indoctrination than what public schools offer. So the private school has worse facilities, lower-paid teachers, lower academic standards, fewer resources for special-needs and/or high-achieving kids, less/no oversight to prevent abuse of systems, finances, or kids. This is the school my parents work at - kids go there because their parents want them to pray and read the Bible and say the pledge of allegiance every day. The parents don't really care if they're on-par with their public school peers in math or reading or if they're learning an accurate version of history (they're not).

The next step is the government choosing to defund their public schools in favor of these private schools (this happened in Iowa). Now a school that exists to push an objectively worse kind of indoctrination (right wing culture war education) but NOT conferring an actual economic, academic, or social advantage is getting funding through a voucher program, while public schools that are held to an actual academic standard and are also required to accept and provide resources for all kids are getting stripped of funding. The end game is that society loses.

[subego]

Originally Posted by Laminar 

higher quality education or higher academic achievement or better college placement or better career opportunities or a strong local economy or better local economic opportunities.

This is the kind of privatization I’m talking about. The kind where the motive is unquestionably constructive. This introduces its own form of inequality. Is that acceptable?

I mean, I already know you reject the other kind.

[subego]

Originally Posted by reader50 

They're likely chosen for perceived quality, teaching the 3 Rs that matter: Religion, Right-wing values, and superior Race. Without mentioning any alternative viewpoints or opinions, of course.

I'd be more impressed if there were lots of private schools that used normal teaching standards, just with higher budgets. But the majority of private schools seem tailored for one or another fanatic group.

Private, or privatized. My high school was exactly what you describe. A school with a big budget that taught in the same manner as the University of Chicago. Grade school was more fanatic, but hippy fanatic.

[Laminar]

Originally Posted by subego 

This is the kind of privatization I’m talking about. The kind where the motive is unquestionably constructive. This introduces its own form of inequality. Is that acceptable?

It is not acceptable if the benefits are only available to those that can afford it.

[subego]

According to Internet, the world’s most successful privatization program is in Bogotá. It’s strictly for impoverished children who don’t have to pay for it. Students in the program do better on developmental tests than their public school peers, and the vast majority of parents want to keep their children in the program.

It introduces the inherent inequality of teaching some children better than others. It also treats the teachers poorly relative to public school teachers, who get longer contracts and benefits.

Among other things, their secret sauce appears to have been that bidding was restricted to organizations who were already successfully running a private school.

[Laminar]

https://news.vanderbilt.edu/2024/04/...tional-skills/

This system? A publicly-funded school system managed by private non-profits selected by the government?

Where does this fit in with your distaste for public education?

[subego]

The part where the students in public schools in Bogotá aren’t getting as good of an education as the students in the privatized schools.

[Laminar]

I think you'll need to more clearly state your stance if you want a good response.

[subego]

I thought you were looking for a response from me.

You asked for a privatization program that didn’t grow inequality. This doesn’t exist, so I provided one where it appears you find the inequality it grows to be acceptable.

[Waragainstsleep]

Originally Posted by subego 

The conservative solution is to privatize.

Isn't it always?

Originally Posted by subego 

As shockingly off-brand as it sounds for conservatives, I posit the intent behind this solution is better education.

If for whatever reason this solution wouldn’t produce the intended result, which is quite possible, my defense of the policy is the intent. Judge the person who offered the solution based on their intent.

The intent from conservatives, particularly in the US appears to be to create the highest quality education for the rich and a generation of idiots for them to exploit among the poor.

Originally Posted by reader50 

Privatizing a public service often goes poorly.

I've always said if the private sector can run it well and make a profit, then the public sector can run it slightly better and break even. Its just a question of getting the right people in to run it. This notion that something cannot be run well because its publicly funded is a conservative trick used to justify selling off services to rich conservatives. Usually on the cheap.

Originally Posted by reader50 

They're likely chosen for perceived quality, teaching the 3 Rs that matter: Religion, Right-wing values, and superior Race. Without mentioning any alternative viewpoints or opinions, of course.

I'd be more impressed if there were lots of private schools that used normal teaching standards, just with higher budgets. But the majority of private schools seem tailored for one or another fanatic group.

Agree. All the private schools in the UK are religious to some extent or another. Its typically not a big focus, and many parents & students simply endure it in order to get the higher quality education, but its there nonetheless. Most public schools also have a religious affiliation too actually. Usually CofE, but this just involves singing a few hymns and the odd church trip to a harvest festival or such.

I like the Finnish idea where there are no private schools (so I heard anyway). The logic being that those super rich parents who like to buy a new wing of their kids already wealthy private school, will donate that money to public schools where kids who need it more will benefit too.
I think in my dictatorship I would implement a combination of this Finnish idea alongside your separation of church and state (only a version that was actually honoured). No religious schools allowed.