haha. your puny guns are no match for us.
Change takes time. 40 years i a very short period and the blacks have made great strides. It will take more time, but to say that racial discrimination is the cause of economic and administrative decisions is wrong. It may still happen in certain schools and areas. But all over the US? That is not possible.
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by CM: *
Change takes time. 40 years i a very short period and the blacks have made great strides. It will take more time, but to say that racial discrimination is the cause of economic and administrative decisions is wrong. It may still happen in certain schools and areas. But all over the US? That is not possible.
[/QUOTE]
I agree. But there was a link, and the repurcussions of that link are felt today.
Aye true but there has been progress from that front and it will take more time.
The differences in educational opportunities and quality of schools in K-12 is largely a product of the method of financing education in our country. As CM says, this is an economic issue not an issue of race. The federal government only finances around 8% of education in the US. States fund about 45% and local governments fund around 38%. The local part comes from property taxes. People who live in wealthy communities pay higher property taxes and schools are well funded. People who live in poor communities don't pay much in propery taxes and schools don't have as much money.
It ** is ** a question of rich versus poor ** not ** black versus white.
The disparity between black and white average income makes this a particularly challenging issue. Since blacks earn less on the average, they live in poorer neighborhoods than the average white. Living in poorer neighborhoods means sending their kids to poorer schools.
If you want to eliminate disparities in quality of K-12 schools based on socio-economic status, you need to totally revamp the way schools are funded or give parents more choice in what schools they can send their kids too. I am a fan of the voucher system in that parents can send their kid to any school they want. I think a lot of poor black Americans have been ill served by their leaders generally opposing the voucher system.
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by myvoice: *
I am a fan of the voucher system in that parents can send their kid to any school they want. I think a lot of poor black Americans have been ill served by their leaders generally opposing the voucher system.
[/QUOTE]
myvoice with school vouchers you would force private schools to take any student who applies? As it stands many private schools set standards that students must pass to be admitted.
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by underthedome: *
myvoice with school vouchers you would force private schools to take any student who applies? As it stands many private schools set standards that students must pass to be admitted.
[/QUOTE]
UTD:
I'm not sure all the intricacies that would need to be included in a school voucher program to make it equitable and how or if public, private and parochial schools would all be integrated. If you can get legislators to agree on the concept, I'm sure the details could be hashed out. As to standards, colleges have standards too. But, those standards are malleable as we have seen with Affirmative Action programs. I'd be inclined to support a form of Affirmative Action that is based on disadvantage defined as socio-economic deprivation rather than race. Vouchers for underprivileged could be worth more to a school than what they would get from the privileged. Give the schools an economic incentive to take underprivileged.
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by myvoice: *
The differences in educational opportunities and quality of schools in K-12 is largely a product of the method of financing education in our country. As CM says, this is an economic issue not an issue of race. The federal government only finances around 8% of education in the US. States fund about 45% and local governments fund around 38%. The local part comes from property taxes. People who live in wealthy communities pay higher property taxes and schools are well funded. People who live in poor communities don't pay much in propery taxes and schools don't have as much money.
It ** is ** a question of rich versus poor ** not ** black versus white.
The disparity between black and white average income makes this a particularly challenging issue. Since blacks earn less on the average, they live in poorer neighborhoods than the average white. Living in poorer neighborhoods means sending their kids to poorer schools.
If you want to eliminate disparities in quality of K-12 schools based on socio-economic status, you need to totally revamp the way schools are funded or give parents more choice in what schools they can send their kids too. I am a fan of the voucher system in that parents can send their kid to any school they want. I think a lot of poor black Americans have been ill served by their leaders generally opposing the voucher system.
[/QUOTE]
true. i'm not arguing against that. what i'm saying is that the rich vs poor dynamic was established in terms of race. so what if that's not how we define it now. the old policy still has repercussions today.
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Sahar02: *
true. i'm not arguing against that. what i'm saying is that the rich vs poor dynamic was established in terms of race. so what if that's not how we define it now.
[/QUOTE]
I don't follow that train of thought. The battle of rich versus poor goes back almost to the dawn of man. It exists even among homogeneous racial populations. White kids living in the poorest white neighborhoods have bad schools just like the blacks living in the poorest black communities.
The rich versus poor dynamic in public education wasn't established in terms of race at all. We have a very long tradition in the US of the neighborhood school. Because they were neighborhood schools, they were funded by the neighborhood. I just don't think you can find any support for the proposition that the method of funding public education was chosen because of racial considerations at all.
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by myvoice: *
I don't follow that train of thought. The battle of rich versus poor goes back almost to the dawn of man. It exists even among homogeneous racial populations. White kids living in the poorest white neighborhoods have bad schools just like the blacks living in the poorest black communities.
The rich versus poor dynamic in public education wasn't established in terms of race at all. We have a very long tradition in the US of the neighborhood school. Because they were neighborhood schools, they were funded by the neighborhood. I just don't think you can find any support for the proposition that the method of funding public education was chosen because of racial considerations at all.
[/QUOTE]
yes, but within america rich and poor have been established largely upon racial/ethnic lines. of course there are exceptions and the lines are blurring, but because of the segregation that existed in early america, many neighborhoods are still divided by race and class. i don't think the method for funding public education was chosen because of racial considerations. however, it doesn't really seem fair to fund education locally. if education is to lead to equal opportunity, there should be equal resources available within schools. there definitely are not. the policy to fund education through local property taxes establishes an inequality in the education system that altho based on economics, still coincides closely with race.
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Sahar02: *
yes, but within america rich and poor have been established largely upon racial/ethnic lines.
[/QUOTE]
Sorry. I think that is flat out wrong. The millions of poor whites in America refutes your statement totally.
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Sahar02: *
the policy to fund education through local property taxes establishes an inequality in the education system that altho based on economics, still coincides closely with race.
[/QUOTE]
Agree that the policy establishes inequality in the education system. If all you are saying is that the inequality disproportionately impacts blacks on a percentage basis, I'll agree with that as well.
And while I would agree with you philosophically that the way we fund education is not "right" or "fair", the task of completely overhauling the system would be monumental and probably doomed to failure. I truly believe that things like parental choice and vouchers would prove beneficial over time.
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by myvoice: *
Sorry. I think that is flat out wrong. The millions of poor whites in America refutes your statement totally.
[/quote]
how? i'm not denying there are poor whites. of course there are. i don't see how that fact thoroughly opposes my point.
[quote]
Agree that the policy establishes inequality in the education system. If all you are saying is that the inequality disproportionately impacts blacks on a percentage basis, I'll agree with that as well.
[/quote]
yes, that's what i mean.
[quote]
And while I would agree with you philosophically that the way we fund education is not "right" or "fair", the task of completely overhauling the system would be monumental and probably doomed to failure. I truly believe that things like parental choice and vouchers would prove beneficial over time.
[/QUOTE]
oh no -- myvoice. vouchers?? really? it seems to me an easy way to ignore the large proportion of failing schools, simply by letting a few kids go to better schools. isnt the result an overcrowding of the better schools (a great danger, because i honestly think that the main strength of these "better" schools is their small class size) and a neglect of all of those students who cannot get to these "better" schools. how do you see vouchers implemented?
^ Here's my thought on the vouchers. Start with the assumption that you give socio-economically deprived kids more money on their voucher. EXAMPLE ONLY: Poor kids voucher is $3,000 per year and rich kids voucher is $2,000 per year. There is now an economic incentive for a school to take a poor kid. Some percentage of poor kids now leave their poor overcrowded schools and go to the better schools. Immediate impact is that the poorer bad school has some easing of overcrowding. Also, the poorer schools with more poorer kids are actually getting funded with more dollars per pupil than they were previously. The bad poorer schools also begin to try to improve to attract more kids so they get more money.
I think that the voucher system must also be implemented in conjunction with more flexibility in local schools to establish their curriculums. You establish some mandatory minimum requirements but let the schools fill out their curriculums with their own unique programs. Thus, one school may choose to heavily promote music and the arts in their curriculums. Another school may establish a curriculum that focuses on dramatics, public speaking, etc. Another school might emphasize foreign languages. Now they compete for students by offering something different and more in tune with the interests of their students.
The system now is clearly failing for millions of poorer, inner city kids. Everything is way too rigid: school assignment, financing, curriculum, everything. Time to take a chance on something dramatic, IMO.
Myvoice, those that attended religious backed schools with their vouchers, would they have to take the religion classes?
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by underthedome: *
Myvoice, those that attended religious backed schools with their vouchers, would they have to take the religion classes?
[/QUOTE]
If private religious based schools are included in a voucher program, my belief, as expressed above, is that the school should have a right to set its curriculum. If religion class is included in the curriculum, students choosing to go to that school should not be heard to complain that they are required to go to religious class. If you don't want your kid to attend religious class, choose a different school that promotes some other thing.
I think (although this is not my area of law practice) that private religious schools would not be able to participate in a voucher program that included federal money under the current US Supreme Court interpretations regarding separation of church and state. I think the receipt of federal tax dollars would trigger the separation of church and state doctrine and prevent advocacy of religion in any such school. Of course, you wouldn't be able to force private schools into the voucher program anyway. Thus, if a religious based school wanted to participate in the program, the trade-off might well be that they would need to give up religious training. I think most private catholic and jewish schools would probably pass and keep their religious curriculum in place.
But myvoice the vast majority of private schools are religious institutions.
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by underthedome: *
But myvoice the vast majority of private schools are religious institutions.
[/QUOTE]
So what?
The success of a voucher system is not dependent upon including private schools, religious or otherwise. Do you think the only good, rich schools are private schools? Compare Beverly Hills High with Crenshaw High in Los Angeles (both public schools) and you will see a huge difference. The opportunities available at Beverly Hills High exist because of the local property tax base that funds the school.
So you can't get Poor Joe Schmo into Sister Mary of the Sacred Hearts High with a voucher program. You can get him into Beverly Hills High.
I'm not following, if the vast majority of private schools are religious and private religious schools are not allowed to participate in a voucher program then wouldn't there be to few other private schools to take in the number of those wanting to switch out of the public school system?
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by underthedome: *
I'm not following, if the vast majority of private schools are religious and private religious schools are not allowed to participate in a voucher program then wouldn't there be to few other private schools to take in the number of those wanting to switch out of the public school system?
[/QUOTE]
No, no, no, no.
The goal of the voucher system is not to get people to switch out of the public school system. The goal is to improve the education offered within the public school system.
The choice offered would be to allow kids to go to any public school or any participating private school in the voucher program. The choice is not limited to only switching from your current public school to a private school.