I remember I was thirteen in the Philippines and we’d have these regular symposia featuring guest speakers from universities, covering different topics from sex (yes, sex) to economics, and what not.

I remember one on the idea of Social Justice and taxation. I don’t remember all the details, it has been at least ten years, but I do remember the few points that the speaker kept on hammering and hammering: flat taxes are evil, especially sales taxes. Progressive taxation is “socially just.” The rich must be taxed more because they have more.

I do understand that there is a big difference between the social milieu around which that sentiment stands, but I for one can no longer believe it to be applicable, neither here in the USA, or in the Philippines.

Such a sentiment makes the assumption that a person who has more is intrinsically an oppressor of the poor, a thief and plunderer of money that the poor should be having “in the first place.” This is done through “unfair wages” and “bad-faith business practices.” I was taught that people with money were The Big Evil who were out to take every opportunity to deprive you of money you are “entitled to.”

I must wonder out loud, though: how fair is fair? There is such a big disaparity on what fair means to different people, and this is at the very core of the taxation policies and political theories behind taxation that the different parties put into practice.

I cannot, in good faith assume that a person’s money is “stolen” and “plundered” from countless victims of business abuse, and what not. I cannot, in good faith assume that, because one day I will be rich off the money I’ve earned, and I will be richer than someone else, and for me to make that assumption, is to open myself to it when I do become rich.

When discussing a controversial law such as the No Child Left Behind Act, there are a lot of avenues with which it could be approached: one, about big government and federal intervention in local affairs, another, about the “fairness” of it all, and the “real effects” of the law. The issue of standardization, can also be brought up.

Doc J linked to what Kevin Drum linked to about a daughter’s sorrow at her father’s losing his job for not being “qualified.” Let me quote the relevant points, from the girl (Amy Sullivan) and from Doc J:

Under the provisions of the No Child Left Behind Act, my dad — who taught social studies at an inner-city high school for twenty-seven years and was nationally recognized as an innovative educator — is considered unqualified to teach history courses in the state of Michigan. Yes, he was an award-winning teacher. Yes, he could teach world history/U.S. history/African history in his sleep. Yes, he has spent the past five years as a college instructor, teaching other social studies teachers how to teach. But his undergraduate major was in English, not history. So, according to the high standards of the No Child Left Behind Act, Dad is not allowed in the classroom as a social studies teacher. — Amy Sullivan

Doc J’s (more than) two cents:

What I’d like to know, is who let this man teach history in the first place?! Presumably, if he’s a bright, motivated fellow, he’s taught himself enough history over the years to more than adequately teach high school kids. But history has to be one of the harder subjects to teach, simply because of the vast scope of questions one could receive. By way of contrast, subjects like chemistry and physics, while perhaps “harder” at an advanced level, aren’t naturally going to lead to a whole lot of questions beyond the immediate scope of the assigned problems.

Letting someone without college training in history teach the subject is madness–and would explain why so many kids get to college knowing squat about the subject. What’s especially ironic is that social studies teachers are nigh unemployable unless they can get hired on as an athletic coach and “fill in” as a history teacher. Which is another reason kids get to college not knowing squat about history. — Doc J

This reminds of me of the old bullshit about “it’s not what your grades say, it’s what you learn.” Complete, and utter bullshit. How does a lawyer get to practice law? He goes to law school and takes a certification exam. Ditto a doctor. Ditto a phlebotomist. Ditto a nurse.

Ditto, or at least should be, educators.

It is just so funny to realize that technicalities and standards sound so good until they don’t work for you. I know that maybe this law borders on zero-tolerance for qualifications and the like, but we have to start from somewhere. We have to have a standard in black and white, on paper, tangible, and interpretable, as to the merits of a teacher and what he can teach.

Yes, her father’s situation may very well be one of many, but I consider this acceptable collateral damage, remedied by the passionate teacher’s willingness to go through classes, and be technically fully qualified. Standards are trying to be brought into the picture. Yes, people who are de facto qualified to be teaching so and so subject may be caught in the crossfire, but we need to come to a point where de facto and de jure are in concordance with each other.

That or The Children™ will stand to suffer either way.