Not much, and certainly not enough.”

If you want what approaches true equity — no argument from me.

“As education is a national interest, it will need national involvement.”

It's not necessarily a national interest requiring federal involvement. There are legitimate questions whether it is a legitimate thing for the federal government to intervene in at all. (It could also be argued that it's not a national interest, period, but that argument falls apart once other unquestionably legitimate federal functions are affected, such as the education levels of military recruits.)

Not much, and certainly not enough.”

If you want what approaches true equity — no argument from me.

“As education is a national interest, it will need national involvement.”

It's not necessarily a national interest requiring federal involvement. There are legitimate questions whether it is a legitimate thing for the federal government to intervene in at all. (It could also be argued that it's not a national interest, period, but that argument falls apart once other unquestionably legitimate federal functions are affected, such as the education levels of military recruits.)

Not much, and certainly not enough. You have only to look at suburban schools compared to inner city ones to see the difference. When teachers spend their own money for school supplies, that says a lot about 'redistribution'.

The larger problem is that individual problems cluster. Money strapped states, regressive tax codes, lack of expertise and lack of interest are often sisters in the same harem.

As education is a national interest, it will need national involvement.
Sometimes it has to happen drastically, as when the National Guard was called in to end segregation. A much more gentle involvement will do this time, but there has to be involvement, or we all fail together. .

There will be no quick fixes, btw, which is why I urge caution. No one-size-fits-all solution. No magic bullet. Just a lot of poking and prodding to see what works where and for which students.

Not much, and certainly not enough. You have only to look at suburban schools compared to inner city ones to see the difference. When teachers spend their own money for school supplies, that says a lot about 'redistribution'.

The larger problem is that individual problems cluster. Money strapped states, regressive tax codes, lack of expertise and lack of interest are often sisters in the same harem.

As education is a national interest, it will need national involvement.
Sometimes it has to happen drastically, as when the National Guard was called in to end segregation. A much more gentle involvement will do this time, but there has to be involvement, or we all fail together. .

There will be no quick fixes, btw, which is why I urge caution. No one-size-fits-all solution. No magic bullet. Just a lot of poking and prodding to see what works where and for which students.

There have been problems with it. I'd note again that part of it has to do with how property is taxed, but there's also simply a lot of economic disparity (even a better tax system would not solve the problem) and you can find that states are typically engaged in redistribution of funds for education as a response to this.

* * *

“Bring the kids out of the projects and into neighborhoods in which their is hope and a win/win situation.”

That was also tried with Section 8 housing during the Clinton years as a cultural improvement effort, if I recall correctly. It was anti-negative as well as positive, i.e., it was seen as breaking up to less than “critical mass” the underclass environment as well as providing role models for improvement. But it was seen instead more than anything by resentful suburbanites as something like cancer metastasizing. With the kids you're revisiting the specter of bussing (this time for cultural and developmental rather than for racial-integration purposes, I admit).

There have been problems with it. I'd note again that part of it has to do with how property is taxed, but there's also simply a lot of economic disparity (even a better tax system would not solve the problem) and you can find that states are typically engaged in redistribution of funds for education as a response to this.

* * *

“Bring the kids out of the projects and into neighborhoods in which their is hope and a win/win situation.”

That was also tried with Section 8 housing during the Clinton years as a cultural improvement effort, if I recall correctly. It was anti-negative as well as positive, i.e., it was seen as breaking up to less than “critical mass” the underclass environment as well as providing role models for improvement. But it was seen instead more than anything by resentful suburbanites as something like cancer metastasizing. With the kids you're revisiting the specter of bussing (this time for cultural and developmental rather than for racial-integration purposes, I admit).

Bring the kids out of the projects and into neighborhoods in which their is hope and a win/win situation.

If we can have universities that teach 50,000 at a time. Why is it we cannot have schools that teach 50,000 students at a time. Instead of 5000 schools with 1000 students. Why not 10 schools with 50,000 students in good areas where the sun shines and their is hope in the surroundings.

Bring the kids out of the projects and into neighborhoods in which their is hope and a win/win situation.

If we can have universities that teach 50,000 at a time. Why is it we cannot have schools that teach 50,000 students at a time. Instead of 5000 schools with 1000 students. Why not 10 schools with 50,000 students in good areas where the sun shines and their is hope in the surroundings.

The bottom line question, then, is where to get these great teachers. That takes money in the long term, even if national service type positions can be created for the short term. .
Great teachers also need a upport sytem and they need guidance and supervision.
The localities that need to improve most are often the ones least able to afford what it takes and/or to know how to best use these great teachers.
Being a good teacher is a high intensity, long hour, job. There is burnout, unless there is support. and compensation.

It's hard. to do and hard to implement. That's why I urge caution before jumping in head first.

The bottom line question, then, is where to get these great teachers. That takes money in the long term, even if national service type positions can be created for the short term. .
Great teachers also need a upport sytem and they need guidance and supervision.
The localities that need to improve most are often the ones least able to afford what it takes and/or to know how to best use these great teachers.
Being a good teacher is a high intensity, long hour, job. There is burnout, unless there is support. and compensation.

It's hard. to do and hard to implement. That's why I urge caution before jumping in head first.

I figure they'd probably do better than you fear. Aside from the legitimate objections to redistribution of tax dollars* in and of itself (with the inefficient “recycling fee” charged in Washington), too often the money comes with strings attached from Washington, which is awful. (Consider the games played with highway funds. New huge fuel tax funds are a non-issue these days but what about the same thing done someday with health care funds?)

* If you want to be sane and enjoy simplicity, hope (pun intended) Obama innovates and just redistributes federal money to states on a uniform per capita basis as the equivalent of something like Canada's “equalization payments” to provinces. But there wouldn't be bloated, bureaucratic, stupid separate such payments for education, for highways, for this, for that. Equal per-capita payments would be made as single big block grants, for everything with _maybe_ a list of permissible [gag] objects of spending, which could be allotted as each state saw fit. (Many people would like to do this with our taxes, “earmark” them for this or that or withhold them from, say, being spent on war elsewhere such as in Iraq.) As long as they were equal per capita payments, the redistribution criterion would be met, which is the essence of federal funding if federal funding is what you want. Uniform standards of education or curricula, testing, etc., seem less important to many than merely redistributing money and equalizing funding. (This is true within states as well, though some of the blame really belongs not on economic disparity among districts but on the nature of the way property taxes are levied.)

“OOH, snarking is fun!”

Shut ye Mouth, ye Wench, snark ye no more, and bring ye my Powder for my Wigge.

And by the way, if we really had been talking about activist libertarianism, 1913 is sufficient. [fade to creaking grandfather clock as color changes to black-and-white and light level dims] In addition to preceding some things most objected to by the activists, it's still Old World enough that the Scrooges you envision would feel at home.

(Seriously, I'm against abolishing public schools as much as I am public roads and highways; I just decry the mischief the federal government, which really has no place in what should be a local and state matter in our federal republic, has often wrought, in education and in other areas. And least of all should we be looking to Washington as the first rather than last resort for anything. Many would disagree, but many are ignorant of federalism or the track record of government in general or know but don't care, which is worse. Washington is not our parent!)

I figure they'd probably do better than you fear. Aside from the legitimate objections to redistribution of tax dollars* in and of itself (with the inefficient “recycling fee” charged in Washington), too often the money comes with strings attached from Washington, which is awful. (Consider the games played with highway funds. New huge fuel tax funds are a non-issue these days but what about the same thing done someday with health care funds?)

* If you want to be sane and enjoy simplicity, hope (pun intended) Obama innovates and just redistributes federal money to states on a uniform per capita basis as the equivalent of something like Canada's “equalization payments” to provinces. But there wouldn't be bloated, bureaucratic, stupid separate such payments for education, for highways, for this, for that. Equal per-capita payments would be made as single big block grants, for everything with _maybe_ a list of permissible [gag] objects of spending, which could be allotted as each state saw fit. (Many people would like to do this with our taxes, “earmark” them for this or that or withhold them from, say, being spent on war elsewhere such as in Iraq.) As long as they were equal per capita payments, the redistribution criterion would be met, which is the essence of federal funding if federal funding is what you want. Uniform standards of education or curricula, testing, etc., seem less important to many than merely redistributing money and equalizing funding. (This is true within states as well, though some of the blame really belongs not on economic disparity among districts but on the nature of the way property taxes are levied.)

“OOH, snarking is fun!”

Shut ye Mouth, ye Wench, snark ye no more, and bring ye my Powder for my Wigge.

And by the way, if we really had been talking about activist libertarianism, 1913 is sufficient. [fade to creaking grandfather clock as color changes to black-and-white and light level dims] In addition to preceding some things most objected to by the activists, it's still Old World enough that the Scrooges you envision would feel at home.

(Seriously, I'm against abolishing public schools as much as I am public roads and highways; I just decry the mischief the federal government, which really has no place in what should be a local and state matter in our federal republic, has often wrought, in education and in other areas. And least of all should we be looking to Washington as the first rather than last resort for anything. Many would disagree, but many are ignorant of federalism or the track record of government in general or know but don't care, which is worse. Washington is not our parent!)

The COUNTRY needs well educated kids, not just their parents, and that means you need to get involved, libertarians!. You can't turn the clock back to the 1700s, no matter how you try. This is 2008. Deal with it!
OOH, snarking is fun!

The COUNTRY needs well educated kids, not just their parents, and that means you need to get involved, libertarians!. You can't turn the clock back to the 1700s, no matter how you try. This is 2008. Deal with it!
OOH, snarking is fun!

How many more times can people be convinced that more studies need to be made and more tax dollars need to be spent on them to better learn the obvious?

I say, many more times, as long as there is a desire to assemble a staff and spend money — as long as it continues to be made available to be spent.

And if you're both ambitious and regressive at the same time, in general, in all cases, about all subjects, you repeat the1960s Democratic mantra: “The answer is: We need more programs, more policies [in Washington]…[more studies]“

How many more times can people be convinced that more studies need to be made and more tax dollars need to be spent on them to better learn the obvious?

I say, many more times, as long as there is a desire to assemble a staff and spend money — as long as it continues to be made available to be spent.

And if you're both ambitious and regressive at the same time, in general, in all cases, about all subjects, you repeat the1960s Democratic mantra: “The answer is: We need more programs, more policies [in Washington]…[more studies]“

Obama actually shows signs of some libertarian leanings, and that combination of this and that is what appeals to me. I love to watch his brain at work,

Obama actually shows signs of some libertarian leanings, and that combination of this and that is what appeals to me. I love to watch his brain at work,