Over the last month, I have stumbled onto a series of posts on Medium "written by" Joe Biden. Oddly enough, Biden's own posts are consistently written in the third person. It's as though he didn't actually write them. These weren't specifically about education, but he addressed the topic in a manner that anyone who knows anything about education will find scary. You can find some of these links below:
https://medium.com/@JoeBiden/the-biden-agenda-for-women-d4055e41822f
https://medium.com/@JoeBiden/the-biden-agenda-for-the-latino-community-4d7329c2644b
Seeing how scary his views were, I visited his campaign website. Here are a couple more links to scare away anyone who truly cares about education:
https://joebiden.com/education/
Seeing how scary his views were, I visited his campaign website. Here are a couple more links to scare away anyone who truly cares about education:
https://joebiden.com/education/
https://joebiden.com/beyondHS/
I have already written about some of his proposals before they were his proposals. Although I don't want to waste too much time repeating myself, I still want to point out some of my concerns. Here are my issues with Biden's most concerning anti-educational values:
I have already written about some of his proposals before they were his proposals. Although I don't want to waste too much time repeating myself, I still want to point out some of my concerns. Here are my issues with Biden's most concerning anti-educational values:
Debt-free colleges
Biden has promoted debt-free government-run colleges for low income families and debt-free community colleges. This proposal is better described as subsidized college since these proposals clearly cost a lot of money. There are multiple ways to pay for these programs, including taxation. Usually, these kinds of policies will increase the cost of living, making life more difficult for those who remain low income.
The only people who can gain any benefits from these types of proposals are those who go to college. If we don't, we get absolutely nothing back. Additionally, these proposals are targeting government-run institutions. This punishes absolutely anyone who choses an alternative path to education. This not only includes those who pursue a college-free education, but those who pursue colleges that are free of government constraints. Simply put, you can be punished for pursuing the education that's best for you.
This proposal also strengthens the flawed and inequitable concept of credentialism. Credentialism is the idea that credentials purchased are more valuable than educational attainment, ability to contribute, and other traits that we should care about.
The only people who can gain any benefits from these types of proposals are those who go to college. If we don't, we get absolutely nothing back. Additionally, these proposals are targeting government-run institutions. This punishes absolutely anyone who choses an alternative path to education. This not only includes those who pursue a college-free education, but those who pursue colleges that are free of government constraints. Simply put, you can be punished for pursuing the education that's best for you.
This proposal also strengthens the flawed and inequitable concept of credentialism. Credentialism is the idea that credentials purchased are more valuable than educational attainment, ability to contribute, and other traits that we should care about.
By strengthening credentialism, we will end up will credential inflation. More desirable jobs will increase their credential requirements, putting these jobs further out of the reach of those we are trying to help. The value of a simple college degree will be diminished. Some jobs currently requiring a high school diploma will start requiring a college degree for the exact same work. Economic mobility will be diminished.
Quite frankly, all of this should sound familiar. One of the big arguments for subsidizing college is that a high school diploma has lost value. To address this problem, we insist that we need to treat college the same way. Somehow, the same policy at a different level is supposed to produce the exact opposite results.
Most people actually learn best outside the constraints of a restrictive schooling environment. By subsidizing colleges, we would be enforcing the idea that it's wrong to pursue the education that's right for you. Highly capable and well educated individuals would face stronger discrimination as we would prohibit them from making meaningful contributions. This would also support the ceilings that employers place within their businesses, limiting the opportunity for numerous Americans to work their way to success.
Quite frankly, all of this should sound familiar. One of the big arguments for subsidizing college is that a high school diploma has lost value. To address this problem, we insist that we need to treat college the same way. Somehow, the same policy at a different level is supposed to produce the exact opposite results.
Most people actually learn best outside the constraints of a restrictive schooling environment. By subsidizing colleges, we would be enforcing the idea that it's wrong to pursue the education that's right for you. Highly capable and well educated individuals would face stronger discrimination as we would prohibit them from making meaningful contributions. This would also support the ceilings that employers place within their businesses, limiting the opportunity for numerous Americans to work their way to success.
Loan forgiveness
Biden has proposed multiple variants on student loan forgiveness. This creates a lot of overlap with my previous comments. Loan forgiveness costs money, and we will likely all pay for it in some form. The only way we can benefit is to allow colleges to control our educations. Credential inflation will result. This will diminish economic mobility. Those who pursue the education that's right for them will be punished.
There is one added concern to loan forgiveness in comparison with subsidizing college. The benefits disproportionately go to those who act irresponsibly rather than those who are responsible with their finances.
There is one added concern to loan forgiveness in comparison with subsidizing college. The benefits disproportionately go to those who act irresponsibly rather than those who are responsible with their finances.
Increase teacher wages
A lot of people, including Biden, have indicated that they want to pay teachers on the basis of credentialism. In other words, teachers should be paid based on the amount they paid to get their job rather than the value of their work. There is no evidence that teachers are truly underpaid. Increasing wages increases cost to taxpayers without any proven benefits. This can increase the cost of living, and it once again provides no value to those who put education above credentials. If you want your kids to pursue an education, the government will take your money away from you in order to increase pay for a profession that actually hinders education.Subsidized pre-kindergarten
Biden wants to expand the government's ability to control and restrict education to younger ages. Evidence surrounding early childhood programs have been underwhelming. This proposal would increase expenses without increasing expectations. I have long insisted that schooling is inefficient. More years to learn the same amount takes us in the wrong direction. Like most of these policy ideas, you must choose schooling over education to benefit in any way.Teacher-centric Department of Education
Biden has told the teachers' unions that he wants a teacher-centric Department of Education. He has also insisted that he will select a union member for the position. When I was in school, I found it remarkable how little my teachers knew about the educational process. They had a textbook knowledge of their job duties, but they lacked any practical understanding of education. Emphasizing that he wants a teachers says far more about his desire to pander to the unions than it does about his interest in education.
More importantly, education should be about the students. Even if teachers cared about education, the department should not be teacher-centric. It should be student-centric. Better yet, it could be learner-centric. Any involvement from teachers should be in an attempt to improve the educational situation for their students. By insisting that he want the department to be teacher-centric, Biden was openly putting the teachers above the learners. He was putting the union above the education.
More importantly, education should be about the students. Even if teachers cared about education, the department should not be teacher-centric. It should be student-centric. Better yet, it could be learner-centric. Any involvement from teachers should be in an attempt to improve the educational situation for their students. By insisting that he want the department to be teacher-centric, Biden was openly putting the teachers above the learners. He was putting the union above the education.
Opposition to vouchers
Although I did not see this in the pages I linked, Biden has openly come out against vouchers. He wants all of the government's educational funds to go to government institutions. This means that if a child is harmed by the government, the money goes to the government rather than the child's education. For low income families, this can prevent a child from leaving an unhealthy environment.
Biden has been called out for his hypocrisy on this issue. He and his family attended a private school. He believes in options for his own family. He does not want less fortunate families to have the same opportunities.
The government-run schooling system has been disastrous. Nobody can become truly well educated in such an environment. By pushing to maintain the no-way-out model, he is guaranteeing that disadvantaged families remain disadvantaged. He is ensuring that families that aren't as well off as he is lack the opportunity to pursue something better. Without choice, far too many children are being deprived of better educational opportunities. Biden is legitimately promoting barriers to educational attainment.
Biden has been called out for his hypocrisy on this issue. He and his family attended a private school. He believes in options for his own family. He does not want less fortunate families to have the same opportunities.
The government-run schooling system has been disastrous. Nobody can become truly well educated in such an environment. By pushing to maintain the no-way-out model, he is guaranteeing that disadvantaged families remain disadvantaged. He is ensuring that families that aren't as well off as he is lack the opportunity to pursue something better. Without choice, far too many children are being deprived of better educational opportunities. Biden is legitimately promoting barriers to educational attainment.
Kamala Harris
Biden has announced that he has selected Kamala Harris as his running mate. It has been established that Harris has supported enforcement of truancy laws. She has supported the prosecution of parents if their children don't go to school.
Children are born with a natural desire to learn. This can be seen in how we learn to walk and talk. Schools impose all sorts of constraints. If a child wants to learn but struggles with the constraints, that child will likely show signs of resistance. This can even lead to a refusal to go to school.
If your child wants to learn, Kamala Harris is the kind of person who would send you to jail. Truancy laws are definitively anti-educational. I could also throw in an argument about the due process clause, but I'm focusing more on educational implications than constitutional implications. The idea here is that Kamala Harris has openly supported the prosecution of parents if their children resist educational constraints.
For me, this vice presidential pick put Biden over the top. His views were already definitively anti-educational. He has shown a desire to impose all sorts of barriers for those who want to pursue the education that's right for them. By picking Harris, he is also showing a degree of support for legal action against the pursuit of education. This combination could very well establish Biden as the most anti-educational major party candidate in history.
Children are born with a natural desire to learn. This can be seen in how we learn to walk and talk. Schools impose all sorts of constraints. If a child wants to learn but struggles with the constraints, that child will likely show signs of resistance. This can even lead to a refusal to go to school.
If your child wants to learn, Kamala Harris is the kind of person who would send you to jail. Truancy laws are definitively anti-educational. I could also throw in an argument about the due process clause, but I'm focusing more on educational implications than constitutional implications. The idea here is that Kamala Harris has openly supported the prosecution of parents if their children resist educational constraints.
For me, this vice presidential pick put Biden over the top. His views were already definitively anti-educational. He has shown a desire to impose all sorts of barriers for those who want to pursue the education that's right for them. By picking Harris, he is also showing a degree of support for legal action against the pursuit of education. This combination could very well establish Biden as the most anti-educational major party candidate in history.
No comments:
Post a Comment