Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The headline is really misleading. "Poverty level" is very different for reduced-lunch eligibility, which is set at 185% of poverty level. A family of five can make up to $51,634 per year, and their kids would be eligible. A family of five at poverty level is $27,910.
I'd like to see the true poverty level figures for kids. They are likely still alarmingly high; I don't think we need deceiving headlines to make the point.
As a future educator, this is evidence to me that the voucher system needs to go.
The premise of the voucher system is that all students' parents can apply to go to any private school in the state. They fill out some paperwork, and presto. They take their kid to a school of their choosing and take their child's designated tax dollars with them.
The problem with this is that only high income people can afford to actually transport their children to the private schools. And, let's face it, not all parents care enough to fill out that paperwork for the sake of their child's education. (That's not the child's fault.) So who does that leave in the public schools? Low income students, and/or students whose parents are not invested in their children's education. All of the students who left took school funding with them, so these already underfunded public schools are left with less money to competitively hire teachers and provide resources.
Now, let me make myself clear, because a lot of parents are fans of the voucher system. If your state decides that it has given up on the public school system and decided that it would rather build escape routes than work to improve these schools, as a parent you should probably take the escape route. You have to do what's best for your kid. But me, I would rather live in a state that believes in its public school system.
The thing one should consider, is that states with highest poverty rates, have very high children in poverty rates.
Example: California has by far the highest poverty rate in the nation several percentage points over the next highest with nearly 25% of the people in California living in poverty. It also is a Red state on the map this article is built around with over half of all the students in K-12 living in poverty.
As a future educator, this is evidence to me that the voucher system needs to go.
The premise of the voucher system is that all students' parents can apply to go to any private school in the state. They fill out some paperwork, and presto. They take their kid to a school of their choosing and take their child's designated tax dollars with them.
The problem with this is that only high income people can afford to actually transport their children to the private schools. And, let's face it, not all parents care enough to fill out that paperwork for the sake of their child's education. (That's not the child's fault.) So who does that leave in the public schools? Low income students, and/or students whose parents are not invested in their children's education. All of the students who left took school funding with them, so these already underfunded public schools are left with less money to competitively hire teachers and provide resources.
Now, let me make myself clear, because a lot of parents are fans of the voucher system. If your state decides that it has given up on the public school system and decided that it would rather build escape routes than work to improve these schools, as a parent you should probably take the escape route. You have to do what's best for your kid. But me, I would rather live in a state that believes in its public school system.
This is not the result of a voucher system at all.
Those with money are putting their kids into private school.
What we really need to do is take a serious look at public schools and how best to serve the majority of students.
The thing one should consider, is that states with highest poverty rates, have very high children in poverty rates.
Example: California has by far the highest poverty rate in the nation several percentage points over the next highest with nearly 25% of the people in California living in poverty. It also is a Red state on the map this article is built around with over half of all the students in K-12 living in poverty.
It's not the education system. It's the changing face of America.
Look at the demographics.
The headline is really misleading. "Poverty level" is very different for reduced-lunch eligibility, which is set at 185% of poverty level. A family of five can make up to $51,634 per year, and their kids would be eligible. A family of five at poverty level is $27,910.
I'd like to see the true poverty level figures for kids. They are likely still alarmingly high; I don't think we need deceiving headlines to make the point.
Thanks for pointing this out. It didn't make sense to me before.
The headline is really misleading. "Poverty level" is very different for reduced-lunch eligibility, which is set at 185% of poverty level. A family of five can make up to $51,634 per year, and their kids would be eligible. A family of five at poverty level is $27,910.
I'd like to see the true poverty level figures for kids. They are likely still alarmingly high; I don't think we need deceiving headlines to make the point.
The last time the statistics were released was for 2010 and nearly 50% of US births were paid for by medicaid. In the 5 years since do you think that number went up or down ?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.