Skip to main content

Why Ted Kennedy is an idiot





After hearing of the Supreme Court decision unholding the Constitutionality of school vouchers, CNN reports and quotes Senator Ted Kennedy as saying:



Private school vouchers may pass constitutional muster, but they fail the test when it comes to improving our nation's public schools.



It's flat wrong to take scarce taxpayer dollars away from public schools and divert them to private schools. Despite the Court's ruling, vouchers are still bad policy for public schools, and Congress must not abandon its opposition to them.
They're not "private school vouchers," Ted. They're vouchers that allow a parent to choose what school to send their child to. They're not an attempt to improve public schools, except in encouraging them to clean up their act and actually do the job of teaching, something they're horrible at right now.



Of course, since this is a report from CNN, that's the major quote in the entire story.



And I guess neither read this article:



A study conducted by Rand Corp., American Institutes for Research and several government entities -- called the CSR Research Consortium -- found that California's efforts to reduce the size of school classes produced mixed results. Moreover, the report cautioned that so many variables were involved that it was "difficult to isolate the effects of any single one."



Nevertheless, class-size reduction "roughly translates to moving a student who was at the 50th percentile to the 53rd percentile" -- only a slight improvement.
Of course, class-size reduction is a major liberal movement because smaller classes will mandate more teachers, which translates into large teacher unions, which means more political clout. This same article contains this tasty, relevant bit:



Harvard University's Paul E. Peterson has found that voucher programs are raising students' scores in Milwaukee, Cleveland and New York City -- and at lower costs.



"The reforms that are cheap and work," Peterson says, "are the hardest to get by the special interests that dominate education."
Amen to that.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

John Wick: Chapter 4

No sense in playing coy, this is a great film. I’ve seen it twice and while I don’t quite love it in the way I love the first, original John Wick , it’s my #2. It’s a little overlong, has some wasted space and time, has one absolutely pointless and useless character, and generally ignores the realities of firefights, falling, getting shot, hit, etc. All that notwithstanding, it’s a great action flick, has a genuine emotional core, and is well worth your time if you’re into that sort of thing. Like I am. Summary: John Wick (Keanu Reeves), last seen saying he was fed up with the High Table, goes to war to obtain his freedom. Some of the most incredible action scenes ever filmed ensue, culminating in a very satisfactory finale and a devastating post-credit scene. The first Wick film was a surprise hit. It was a simple, straight-forward tale of vengeance told in a simple, straight-forward manner. Where it stood out was its devotion to human stunt work, on exploiting long camera shots that ...
Post a Comment
Read more

Not the Hero We Deserve, But the Hero We Need

The Dark Knight is the best film I’ve seen in years. Not just the best “superhero” film, but the best film of any type. It’s not perfect, not quite a masterpiece, but it’s flaws are, to me, tiny and overwhelmed by the time the film ends. While relatively bloodless, it is consistently brutal, not just in what it depicts but in the themes that drive it. TDK is a film for adults, please leave the kids at home. Let’s deal with those “flaws” first, the largest being the character Rachel Dawes . In Batman Begins , I blamed Katie Holmes . Her acting was weak, to say the least, which is regrettable in that who she is and what she says and does are important to the film. Critics agreed and either for that or other reasons, Katie was replaced by Maggie Gyllenhaal , who is a better actress. Yet here she’s weak, real weak. Maybe it’s the character, not the actress, which is frustrating because Rachel is a pivotal character. The film,...
1 comment
Read more

Dune Part 2 (2024)

I have come not to praise Dune but to bury it. I am in a distinct minority. So be it. To explain why, there will be some minor spoilers ahead; sorry. The short version is #NotMyDune. Summary: Picking up where Dune Part 1 left off, we find the young Paul Atreides (Timothée Chalamet) hanging out with the Fremen. Plots to overthrow rival houses and empires ensue. Go here to see what I thought about Dune Part 1 (2021) . Overall, I found it to be technically brilliant, but lacking a human heart, an exercise in frenetic slow motion. D2 is more of the same, though with far more action. Acting-wise, everyone is doing a fine, more than adequate job. Absolutely no one or nothing stands out. The way the characters are written (adapted, actually), their back and forths and interactions, are all weak and unengaging. I generally hate when they speak. I've read the novel a ridiculous number of times, and these films are prompting me to read it again. I understand that trying to translate the n...
1 comment
Read more