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.
I know, there are so many exaggerated statements in here, I have to wonder how much time some of the posters in here spend time arguing on FB or Twitter with radicals that identify as "liberals".
It's true. You see the sentiment expressed in this very thread. Anyone who wants their own children to succeed is accused of wanting to "rig the system."
Location: Live:Downtown Phoenix, AZ/Work:Greater Los Angeles, CA
27,606 posts, read 14,698,478 times
Reputation: 9169
Quote:
Originally Posted by KonaldDuth
It's true. You see the sentiment expressed in this very thread. Anyone who wants their own children to succeed is accused of wanting to "rig the system."
The only "radicals" posting on C-D are the crazed Trump cultists, who will follow their deranged cult leader till the bitter end.
Regardless, I would assume that the vast majority of Trump "cultists" have attended, or have children that attend public schools. Most Trump supporters do pay into, and utilize subsidized public education. Regardless of political leanings, wealthier folks are likely going to put their children through better schools and poorer folks are more likely to put their children through worse school districts.
It's true. You see the sentiment expressed in this very thread. Anyone who wants their own children to succeed is accused of wanting to "rig the system."
So you're going to make a sweeping generalization of all liberals based on some opinion expressed in this thread that you probably misinterpreted anyway?
I disagree. I dont think money has anything to do with the success of the students. In my state, the poorest school districts get the most tax dollars. They are heavily subsidized by state taxes. This is the law in NJ. Yet, in spite of spending $30k per student per year, these poor school districts are the worst performing districts in the state.
It has everything to do with parental expectations, and peer pressure. In the wealthy districts, we as parents, expect our kids to study a lot and get “A”s. Our kids hang out with other kids who place good grades above everything else. They compete with each other, so it is more like a real world environment. Kids would be embarrassed if they got a “C”. Heck, my kids are embarrassed about “B”s.
If we took the $30K and sent the poor kids to private schools, where more is expected of them, starting from a very young age, they would do much better than spending the $30k at their current public schools in Newark and Camden, NJ.
50% of all NJ state spending on education goes to the 31 Abbot Districts, the poorest communities. Yet, when this spending is divided by the number of students in these districts, actual per pupil spending is often greatly exceeded in wealthier districts with smaller student bases.
The winner of highest spending is the Bergen County Special Ed, at $ 60,129 per pupil with a small student population.
No shortage of districts in NJ that spend $30,000+ per pupil and most are not " economically disadvantaged" communities.
School performance is far more a reflection of the student body and home enviornment than anything else.
In the 90's I lived in Montclair NJ, a very racially and economically diverse community of extreme affluence and destitution and it all played out in the schools which ranged from drop outs to Rhodes Scholars. Same school. Same spending per pupil.
What mattered more so than anything else was what was going on within the home, or not. Those kids who came from homes with never ending economic and emotional chaos tended not to do well in school. They did not know, day to day if they would eat, be locked out, who else might be living in their home, if mama and or dad would be on a crack bender, or not. They might spend Saturday or Sunday visiting a parent in prison. They might be abandoned for days.
in so many cases, the dominate parent continuously put themselves before their children. I suspect in many cases, they just did not know any better or that drugs had rewired their brains.
While most of the most disadvantaged tended to be black, the black community produced a fair share of top students. They either came from affluent families or had stable home lives when education was highly valued.
Again. My point is that this was the same school, same spending per pupil. Very different outcomes. No telling how different outcomes might have been if all children had stable homes, free of never ending chaos and hysteria.
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.
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.
Cause we don't live in 1948 silly
