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.
What percent of US private schools are sectarian schools? What percent of private school students attend those sectarian schools? Do you really think they draw more from the upper classes than from the lower and lower-middle classes?
I don't know. What I was discussing was upper-middle-class liberals, who can choose to send their kids to public or private schools depending on their preference, being opposed to school vouchers for the poor.
Not in the least. I post in response to someone who doesn't know about the phase outs.
LOL! All who need to know about PEP and Pease already do. You are doing no sort of public service here on that score at all.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SportyandMisty
But then again, how many times have you posted that you ate in the Executive Dining Room of the Federal Reserve?
None, considering that it's the Chairman's Dining Room. That I mentioned once so as to quickly wipe away some silly claims from C2BP. It's just the Red Caps who've insisted on bringing it up since.
What I was discussing was upper-middle-class liberals, who can choose to send their kids to public or private schools depending on their preference, being opposed to school vouchers for the poor.
The actual logic behind school vouchers is to get taxpayers to pick up the tab for those who have already decided to send their kids to sectarian schools but who don't want to pay for them. A strong argument against vouchers meanwhile is the simple fact that they have never actually worked anywhere to anything remotely like the standards proponents have claimed for them. Even in DC where voucher people were effectively given a free hand to design their optimum program, that program failed to deliver on its promises.
The actual logic behind school vouchers is to get taxpayers to pick up the tab for those who have already decided to send their kids to sectarian schools but who don't want to pay for them. A strong argument against vouchers meanwhile is the simple fact that they have never actually worked anywhere to anything remotely like the standards proponents have claimed for them. Even in DC where voucher people were effectively given a free hand to design their optimum program, that program failed to deliver on its promises.
It is irrelevant whether vouchers are actually working in one test site or another (typically administered by the same people who ruined the public schools). Consumer choice is a fundamental right; that's why we don't tell poor people where to buy their groceries. We give them a food card and let them decide. The same should apply to schools; whether they paid the school tax or someone else paid their share because they are poor, the money is theirs and they should be able to use it the way they think is best for their children.
You can't force people do put their kids in suboptimal schools by legislation.
We had a 10 star elementary school in our neighborhood (homes $400k-over $1 mil). They started busing in kids from poor
apartments south of here. Everyone in the neighborhood left the school (sent kids to private or petitioned to get kids moved to different elementary in the same district). School fell to 3 stars and no one wants their kid to go there.
You can jam poor folks in anywhere you want - result: rich folks leave.
Only the greatest fanatics are going to sacrifice their children's education for the ideal of public schools.
I used to work with a guy who sent his kid to local schools in a low income area. He's one of the most grounded people I know, also he's a republican. I'm sure it helps both he and his wife had educational backgrounds.
Do you really need someone to spell it out for you? The hypocrisy - understandable though it is - occurs when someone clearly knows the important of public schools, and understands that for public schools to work best, they require a mix, yet chooses private school instead.
...Most of the people on the highest rung in America are in denial about their privilege. The American myth of meritocracy allows them to attribute their position to their brilliance and diligence, rather than to luck or a rigged system.
Isn't that what makes it all the more satisfying? The system was rigged against you, you didn't have a half clue in your corner but by God you made it and now you're family is in the clear...
I mean, if it was just meritocracy, I'd feel bad for stupid people. There'd be no stupid rich people to attack. If I have a stupid son, perhaps I'd have to sit him down and explain to him...son, you're stupid, so I need to give the money you might inherit to this other person who is smarter than you, and better able to take care of himself than you....
Why does being smart mean you should be wealthy? It doesn't matter what system it is. If you play by the rules of a system, you'll likely have a safe life, but not gain tremendous financial resources.
Did you read the whole article? The point of the article is that we tend to pretend class priviledge doesn't exist in the US when in fact the top percentile of US families enjoy great privilege.
No, the main argument in the article is that upper-middle class Americans got to where they are because of sheer luck and an unfair system, and not through intelligence and hard work. Therefore, upper-middle class Americans don't deserve their status:
"The big difference is that most of the people on the highest rung in America are in denial about their privilege. The American myth of meritocracy allows them to attribute their position to their brilliance and diligence, rather than to luck or a rigged system."
No, the main argument in the article is that upper-middle class Americans got to where they are because of sheer luck and an unfair system, and not through intelligence and hard work. Therefore, upper-middle class Americans don't deserve their status:
Nobody “deserves” his/her status. We are where we are, largely from elements beyond our control. This doesn’t mean that the successful should be dispossessed, or the unsuccessful given a luxurious stipend or whatnot. But it does mean that we should think twice, before claiming credit for success, or taking blame for failure. It means that we should acknowledge that it is simply not the case that rewards necessarily flow to the worthy, or punishments to the reprobate. In other words, we should acknowledge that life is unfair, and that efforts to make it fair are probably going to fail.
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.
