Grade Tax Analogy
Ok, so I've been grading a bunch of papers on Progressives, in which students are asked to give their opinion about their goals and accomplishments, whether they went too far, didn't go far enough, etc. Most all of my students have praised them. So I'm thinking that next week I'll announce the implementation of a grade tax on this last test, to be applied to everyone who approved of the progressive income tax. I'll suggest that anyone who approved of a progressive income tax should have no problem with also approving of redistributing grades and bumping down "overachievers" a little. Any student who scored over an 82 or so will have points deducted from their test, and those points will be added to student tests that didn't score as well. The higher the score above 82, the more points will be deducted. Maybe a 97 will become a 90, a 92 an 87, an 87 an 84, and an 84 an 83. Those who did very well will still do better than those who didn't, but the success of the "smart" will be limited, just as the wealthy were limited by the 16th amendment.
I'll be as straight-faced about this as possible, and maybe even assure students that I've checked this through with the principal and that he's fine with it. The point will be to get them to see the perspective of the wealthy regarding some Progressive ideas. None of my students seem to have taken the side of the wealthy in their papers (which I respect, as long as they are able to see both sides), so a little provocation that hits close to home might help. But I'm wondering about the flaws there might be in this analogy. In what ways would a progressive "grade tax" be different from the progressive income tax? So readers who care to (Isaac?), please point out where this comparison breaks down. I'm sure there are weaknesses to it, but I'm having a hard time seeing them. I suppose one would be if the highest possible grade is a 100 then there is already a grade limit in place, or the equivalent to a tax, whereas in theory one can accrue unlimited wealth. That's the best I can come up with right now.
Lest anyone fear I'm indoctrinating students against a progressive tax, have no worry. I try to challenge students to think about different perspectives on an issue, but am not expecting them to take one side over another.
I'll be as straight-faced about this as possible, and maybe even assure students that I've checked this through with the principal and that he's fine with it. The point will be to get them to see the perspective of the wealthy regarding some Progressive ideas. None of my students seem to have taken the side of the wealthy in their papers (which I respect, as long as they are able to see both sides), so a little provocation that hits close to home might help. But I'm wondering about the flaws there might be in this analogy. In what ways would a progressive "grade tax" be different from the progressive income tax? So readers who care to (Isaac?), please point out where this comparison breaks down. I'm sure there are weaknesses to it, but I'm having a hard time seeing them. I suppose one would be if the highest possible grade is a 100 then there is already a grade limit in place, or the equivalent to a tax, whereas in theory one can accrue unlimited wealth. That's the best I can come up with right now.
Lest anyone fear I'm indoctrinating students against a progressive tax, have no worry. I try to challenge students to think about different perspectives on an issue, but am not expecting them to take one side over another.
posted by redsoxwinthisyear at 12:45 PM
3 Comments:
I wouldn't worry if you WERE trying to "indoctrinate" them against the progressive income tax. :)
If over half of the students are lazy, then it won't matter what the hard working students think. Just like if a majority of Americans are too lazy to think for themselves, we all get stuck with the results.
brenda--good point, the hard workers might scream bloody murder, but if enough of them did poorly then the majority might like the idea!
aaron--you're not a big fan of the progressive income tax??? Don't you currently benefit from it? I assume you currently don't pay any income tax. You might if it a progressive tax wasn't in place... :-)
But more seriously, I don't think you really want teachers indoctrinating students in the public school setting. Maybe in home education or something, where your parents have every right to indoctrinate you all they want. But if we're going to be upset at public school teachers who preach a political agenda with which we disagree, we can't turn around and approve of teachers promoting our own political agenda. Don't want to be accused of hypocrisy and all that...
Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia crafts a fine argument along these lines regarding judges. You don't really want to have "conservative" judges on the court, because they will read their own political agenda into cases just as much as "liberals," and be judicial activists in their own right. Instead, Scalia argues that you should have "strict constructionist" judges who only read law according to original intent, regardless if their decision is conservative or liberal. Thus Scalia makes decisions that sometimes upset conservatives, and sometimes upset liberals. Of course Scalia gets labeled as a "conservative" judge, but I think he would take exception to that title.
All of this is to say that I think you WOULD want to worry if I was trying to indoctrinate students as a public school teacher, as opposed to make them think about various sides of the issue. Ok, I'll get off my teacher's soapbox now. :-)
Post a Comment
<< Home