Thursday, August 17, 2017

Why Trump is good for black education and advancement

Conservatives stand for equality of opportunity, equal justice under the law, and a colorblind society. We also believe in results, not intentions. Liberals tend to have horrible results with their good intentions when it comes to economic policy, especially as it pertains to black Americans. Polls show consistently that what blacks care most about today is jobs and economic opportunity.

Barack Obama, our first black president, won well over 90 percent of the black vote, yet from an economic perspective he delivered poor results. Black incomes from 2009 to 2014 fell more for blacks than any other racial or ethnic group. Just as an example of good intentions run amok: policies like raising the minimum wage increases had a statistically significant negative effect on black teenage labor force participation rates.

I would argue that two factors hold back economic progress for blacks: a lack of jobs in inner cities and poor educational opportunities. On both of these, Trump is delivering positive results. The black unemployment rate has fallen by a full percentage point in the last year, black labor force participation is up, and the number of black Americans with a job has risen by 600,000 from last year. Preliminary data show black wages and incomes up since the election.

It’s early for sure, but so far Trump has done more for black economic progress in six months than Obama did in eight years. The other issue that is critically important to black and Hispanic economic progress is good schools. No president has done more to advance school choice so that every child can attend a quality school public or private. In cities like Washington D.C. and Milwaukee, 90 percent of the children who benefit from these programs are black.

Trump wants to increase these vouchers and scholarships more black children. The idea is that good schools should be available to all children regardless of race or income. As the black parents I spoke to who participate in these scholarship programs have told me, “Why does Barack Obama get to send his kids to private schools, but not us?” Good question and one that no liberal has ever been able to answer.

Amazingly, the people who oppose the school choice program for black Americans that Trump is advancing are liberal elites. The same people who denounce Trump for what happened in Charlottesville, hypocritically oppose Trump’s ideas for better school options for black children. School choice is arguably the civil rights issue of our time and liberals side with teachers unions not African American children.

So is Trump a racist who doesn’t care about the future of black Americans? He is creating jobs, higher incomes and trying to give a better education to every disadvantaged child in America. That is a pretty darn good civil rights record.


British education Director Argues Smacking Is ‘Tactile’ Contact In Debate On ‘Good Morning Britain’’

An education expert explained why she believes smacking children can be acceptable as it is a part of the “tactile” relationship parents have with their kids.

Kate Ivens, education director of charity, Real Action, and vice-chairman for the Campaign for Real Education, was asked by Jeremy Kyle on ‘Good Morning Britain’ whether smacking should be an “ultimate” punishment or a “regular” punishment.

“I’m saying we have a tactile relationship with our children,” Ivens responded on Tuesday 16 August.

Ivens continued: “We hug them, we kiss them, we breastfeed them and so on and there are times when, like a child running out into the road, I remember when my children did that and I shook them [and said]: ‘Never you do this again.’ “After that my children would run freely down the road with complete freedom and always stopped at the curb, always.”

The ‘Good Morning Britain’ debate followed a Twitter poll the ITV show ran that showed - out of 6,979 votes - 55% of respondents agreed with smacking, while 45% disagreed.

Ivens continued: “Is it always wrong? I think the thing about smacking is, in order to be clear, because there’s so many interpretations of what a smack is, people feel like they have to come down on one side or another.”

A former teacher, Sue Atkins, spoke on the show about why she disagreed with smacking. ″The problem with smacking is where do you start and when do you stop?” she said. “It’s hard; what if you’re angry and you actually lose the plot and you smack a child?

“I used to be a deputy head and class teacher for 25 years so if a child hits another child in the playground, you say that’s aggression.”

Ivens replied to Atkins, saying: “I don’t think you are being violent I think you are making a tactile contact with your child.”

Previously speaking to HuffPost UK on the topic of smacking, Amanda Gummer, child psychologist and founder of Fundamentally Children said she believes the current law around smacking is “just about right”, arguing kids who don’t have the cognitive or emotional ability to understand consequences may, on occasion, benefit from a physical consequence.

“It is the context that is paramount here,” she continued. “If a child knows he/she is loved unconditionally and has consistent boundaries, and an emotionally stable home, and has received an occasional smack for repeated dangerous behaviour, it is very different from a child who lives in fear of getting smacked inconsistently and for the mildest of misdemeanours.

“It is this second form of discipline that is most damaging to a child’s emotional development.”


Australia: Business backs Coalition’s higher education reforms

Business is backing the Turnbull government’s higher education reforms, describing them as modest and a chance to take stock to assess whether Australia’s uncapped demand-driven university system is delivering the best outcomes for students and industry.

Universities are running a fierce campaign against the Coalition’s reforms, arguing they represent the most significant over­haul in the sector for two decades and will result in a “double hit” on students paying more for a lower quality education, staff cuts and jeopardise Australia’s $22 billion a year education export industry.

But the government disputes this, countering the overhaul is necessary because taxpayer funding to universities has been a “river of gold” and the demand-driven system needs to be put on a sustainable footing for future generations.

Jenny Lambert, the Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry’s director of employment, education and training, said the business group was supportive of the package because it offered a chance to put “a little bit of brake on the system”, make some modest changes and send further signals about universities being efficient and effective.

The tertiary overhaul — which introduces a 2.5 per cent efficiency dividend on universities next year and in 2019, ties about $500 million a year in university funding to performance improvements and requires graduates to begin paying back their HELP debt at 1 per cent when their income reaches $42,000 — was the largest savings measure in the budget handed down in May. The reforms are worth $2.7bn across five years but are stalled in the parliament.

“We don’t know that those who have been pushed to attend university — who may not have previously done so — do they find their medium to long-term outcomes have justified that decision or have they been disappointed or let down by the system?’’ Ms Lambert said.

“If the medium-term evidence shows us that they (universities) have been more efficient, they have been more effective, and student outcomes start to go up in this uncapped demand-driven system, then we can say ‘well, we’ve got the settings about right and we need to make sure the universities can afford to deliver the quality of education that everyone expects.’ ”

Federal Education Minister Simon Birmingham said the higher education reforms were essential and not onerous.

“We’re confronted with around $50bn of student debt with a quarter not expected to be repaid, taxpayer funding for universities having increased at twice the rate of the economy and per student revenue increases of 15 per cent while costs have only grown by 9.5 per cent,” he said.

“Universities will still see 23 per cent growth in taxpayer funding, all we’re asking is for them to operate within a more sustainable rate of growth. That’s not a cut but it will make higher education more sustainable into the future.”


No comments: