"State should expand Metco" ' add more cities' (school district, income)

[Dm84]

Originally Posted by miu

Wrong. In those school systems, it's their parents' who have failed their children. The teachers are more than willing to teach, but when the children aren't interested in learning, it's the fault of the parents who haven't taught their children the importance of having a good education.

That's all well and good, but if you have children whose parents do care trapped in schools filled with parents who don't care with no way out that's no good.

[miu]

Originally Posted by Dm84

That's all well and good, but if you have children whose parents do care trapped in schools filled with parents who don't care with no way out that's no good.

But the METCO program doesn't solve that since only blacks are being bussed to the better school districts.

[SouthSota14]

Originally Posted by Whatsnext75

Part of me says screw METCO because why should it only be for people of color? What about white people that can't afford good school systems? But then the other part of me looks at white people living in places like Weston, Wellesley, Concord (that most people can't afford_ and thinks why should only you get the best of everything?

Exactly. Theres the whites that get screwed hard, but then the ones that get everything.. The 1st group thinks the 2nd group can work for them more often than not though.

[SouthSota14]

Also, I think if more whites moved to the democrat party or 3rd party, they'd be getting their needs met more. Poor whites on the republican ticket just makes too little sense.

[semiurbanite]

Originally Posted by bugelrex

Shouldn't the focus be on 'fixing' the underlying problem? Why are the schools so bad that they have the escape?

The underlying problem is actually perpetuated by higher income families fleeing to a select few districts. Since academic achievement correlates to income, the sure-fire way to fix the problem is to get people out of poverty but we now that isn't happening anytime soon especially with this president. The next best thing is to reverse some of the effect of this "fleeing" and bring the lower income kids into these better districts. So METCO in a sense is going in the direction of "fixing" the problem as best possible when we have a large income disparity.

[massnative71]

Originally Posted by semiurbanite

Since academic achievement correlates to income, the sure-fire way to fix the problem is to get people out of poverty but we now that isn't happening anytime soon especially with this president.

Poverty did increase under Obama, despite presiding over an economic "recovery". But he is no longer president. Give the new guy a chance. It appears inner-city students will fare better under the new regime, but of course only time will tell.

[bugelrex]

Originally Posted by semiurbanite

Since academic achievement correlates to income, the sure-fire way to fix the problem is to get people out of poverty but we now that isn't happening anytime soon especially with this president.

The school system in Boston has been broken for decades, there really is no point in bringing Trump into this. As far as I can see, he will attempt to do something "different" which is give vouchers to poor kids so they have a chance to escape.

Will it work? make things worse? Who knows, but the policies as the past decades can now be seen as "not working"

[semiurbanite]

Originally Posted by massnative71

Poverty did increase under Obama, despite presiding over an economic "recovery". But he is no longer president. Give the new guy a chance. It appears inner-city students will fare better under the new regime, but of course only time will tell.

Income disparity has been increasing consistently for a very long time, and no Obama did not stop that trend but also did not star tit. With vouchers, some inner city kid will get to go to better schools while the rest (Most) are stuck in the same schools but with even fewer resources.

He's had his chances already - anyways enough politics.

[GeoffD]

Originally Posted by massnative71

Poverty did increase under Obama, despite presiding over an economic "recovery". But he is no longer president. Give the new guy a chance. It appears inner-city students will fare better under the new regime, but of course only time will tell.

How is that going to happen? The Federal government funds 10% of K-12 public education. Just about 100% of the money goes to three programs. Head Start. Title I. Special Ed. Those funds are specifically targeted at poor school districts. When the budget gets slashed to give 0.1%ers a big tax cut, it's taking money away from poor school districts.

Poverty has increased because wealth and income stratification has increased. That's due to technology/automation and global competition undermining the value of unskilled labor. Obama had nothing to do with it. Red Trump "Let's Make America Great Again" hats and empty promises will have zero impact on unemployed rust belt factory workers or West Virginia coal miners. My stock portfolio looks great because killing regulations is good for corporate profits. How is that going to help some single parent Section 8 housing kid in a failed city?

[GeoffD]

Originally Posted by semiurbanite

With vouchers, some inner city kid will get to go to better schools while the rest (Most) are stuck in the same schools but with even fewer resources.

Vouchers end up being a middle/upper middle class subsidy. They don't come close to covering the cost of attending another school. If you're poor, you still have zero option but to stay in your assigned school.