The Washington Examiner

Erik Kain

Erik writes about video games at Forbes and politics at Mother Jones. He's the contributor of The League though he hasn't written much here lately. He can be found occasionally composing 140 character cultural analysis on Twitter.

Related Post Roulette

9 Responses

  1. Rufus F. says:

    Public education is a bit like Old Regime France- everyone knows the system is failing; but “everyone” is part of one privileged order or another (and I mean teachers, administrators, students and parents alike) benefiting from the lousy system and its basement-level standards, while loudly demanding everyone else make concessions and be held accoutable.Report

    • Louis B. in reply to Rufus F. says:

      @Rufus F., the inherent problem with education is that while everything is supposed to benefit the students, they’re the only group that doesn’t take part in the constant logrolling and trade-offs. I can’t see any way to remedy this that isn’t stupid or doesn’t undermine the narrative for why we need all this education in the first place.

      As such I’m very skeptical of all the plans to “reform” education, even those that appeal to my libertarian sensibilities.Report

  2. Ian M. says:

    Erik, I’m curious about your thoughts on giving experienced teachers a pay differential to transfer into the most challenged schools in a district. Incentives for merit run into the inevitable “who measures the merit and how do they measure it” problem. Also, it will reward teachers in high performing schools that do not need help. Struggling schools would benefit from good teachers, good teachers are not afraid of challenges, and the main perk of seniority in a unionized district is typically the ability to pick first from available openings. In Nashville, new teachers are put into the worst schools and they transfer as soon as possible as they gain experience. Incentives to keep experienced teachers in struggling schools is, to me, an easier sell politically and directly addressed the problem – failing schools. Also, unlike merit pay, teachers already get differentials for all sorts of things – having an advanced degree, running extracurricular activities, so it is difficult to argue against.Report

    • Trumwill in reply to Ian M. says:

      @Ian M., my main concern with it would be that experienced teachers do not necessarily equal good teachers. Some of the best teachers I had were young and enthusiastic ones or those that worked in private industry, struck it rich (we had an IPO at a chemical factory that made a lot of engineers rich and seriously bolstered the number of science teachers in my school district), and changed careers.

      That being said, there may be enough of a correlation that it might be worth trying.Report

      • Ian M. in reply to Trumwill says:

        @Trumwill, Fair enough, but the “rewards for good teachers” ignores how to determine this by a metric everyone agrees actually works. Any mention of merit pay should include how merit is determined or the discussion becomes fantasy based. I would be willing to combine the two by giving merit pay to teachers who choose to work in the most troubled schools. I just think getting teachers and administrators to agree on what is a troubled school is easier than getting them to agree on what makes a good teacher.
        For the record, the best teachers I had were career teachers each with about 15 years of service by the time I got to them. I went to public school in a suburb of Detroit and most experienced teachers ended up in the burbs instead of Detroit. I found young teachers pretty mediocre, but there were certainly some ossified turds waiting for retirement.Report

    • E.D. Kain in reply to Ian M. says:

      @Ian M., Ian, I think we should try it! I think we should try lots of things and oppose anyone who A) opposes trying things or B) wants to nationalize education so that only one thing can be tried at a time!Report

  3. Mike Farmer says:

    The “myth” is that government will cut spending, or that raising taxes increases revenues. It’s true that just giving tax breaks as a gimmick doesn’t help, but doing away with capital gains taxes would increase revenues to government — however, if you don’t also cut stupid regulations, cut-out corporat welfare, and liberate the market, it won’t help that much. What we need is a free market with busineses allowed to keep and re-invest their profits. Signaling a business-friendly environment with stable rules would give businesses confidence to expand and hire, plus we’d be more competitive in the global market, which is what we need to be concerned about. Most statists can’t envision the revenues which would be generated from full employment and greatly increased consumer spending, plus they can’t bear to not be in control of the process.Report

  4. Barry says:

    Mike: “The “myth” is that government will cut spending, or that raising taxes increases revenues. ”

    Supply-side economics is a lie. Mike, if you’re going to play Mr. Libertarian, please read an econ book.Report