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.
Please explain this statement from your post - 'White suburban taxpayers DESERVE to be "derided."'
Also, you didn't understand any of the school district property tax rate information I provided, did you? It's not just Obama that is paying a lower tax rate for schools than suburban taxpayers, it's every single Chicago property owner including owners of the multi-million dollar condos in the Gold Coast neighborhood. Other Chicago property owners financially benefitting from the tax break are Gov. Blagojevich, Mayor Daley, Rahm Emanuel, Rev. Wright, Louis Farrakhan, etc., etc.
That's why scapegoating 'white' suburban taxpayers is so ridiculous. It places Obama's racism and incompetence on public display (I'm giving Obama the benefit of the doubt here by choosing to believe that he was ignorant of the facts and didn't bother to make sure he knew what he was talking about before stating that 'white' suburban taxpayers didn't want to fund Chicago's schools - instead of assuming he knew full well that Chicago property owners were getting a tax break while everyone else in Illinois was paying extra to subsidize Chicago's schools, and then making his racist statement anyway).
Obama is not a racist. I think you should give him the benefit of the doubt. The property tax situation--not only in Chicago and its suburbs, but all over the country--is a nightmare and needs to be revisited. I'm sure Obama's intent was to reallocate money to Chicago public schools, since I assume that Chicago's public schools are funded by property taxes? Children from economically depressed neighborhoods of Chicago (no different than in Boston or Los Angeles) are thus put at a severe disadvantage--and the cycle of poverty continues. SOMEthing must be done. I do agree with you, however, that the redistribution of tax money should ensure that those of Obama's economic class be exempted from any tax breaks. That is, if primarily white suburban taxpayers are required to pay an increased rate, then so should anyone else living in Chicago--of whatever race--from that same tax bracket.
Obama is not a racist. I think you should give him the benefit of the doubt. The property tax situation--not only in Chicago and its suburbs, but all over the country--is a nightmare and needs to be revisited. I'm sure Obama's intent was to reallocate money to Chicago public schools, since I assume that Chicago's public schools are funded by property taxes? Children from economically depressed neighborhoods of Chicago (no different than in Boston or Los Angeles) are thus put at a severe disadvantage--and the cycle of poverty continues. SOMEthing must be done. I do agree with you, however, that the redistribution of tax money should ensure that those of Obama's economic class be exempted from any tax breaks. That is, if primarily white suburban taxpayers are required to pay an increased rate, then so should anyone else living in Chicago--of whatever race--from that same tax bracket.
Once again, you're making assumptions that just aren't true. Chicago's schools spend over $11,000 per student per year, 30% of that is subsidized by the 'white' suburban taxpayers that Obama scapegoated, and others. The Chicago Public School District spends MORE per student than the state average, and spends MORE per student than most of the suburban school districts. If anyone is at a disadvantage in school funding, it's students in school districts OTHER than Chicago -- Naperville, for example, which spends much less per student than any of Chicago's public schools. NONE of Chicago's public schools are underfunded. Are they severely mismanaged? It would seem so.
And you completely missed the point on Obama's racism. He specifically chose to scapegoat 'whites' when the suburbs are actually quite diverse, just like the large metropolitan areas of NYC or LA. Obama's intent WAS to blame 'whites,' otherwise he would have just left it as a suburban/city tax issue without specifically mentioning 'whites.'
Too bad for him that he never even bothered to find out that those inner-city schools he seems to care about but pays a reduced tax rate to are funded for MORE per student than many of the suburban schools.
If anyone is at a disadvantage in school funding, it's students in school districts OTHER than Chicago
Equal funding for unequal student bodies is not equitable.
The playing field is unequal before the kids walk in the door.
I don't pretend to know the school funding in IL. But the urban vs. suburban disparity in funding is standard - and is neither the problem nor, alone, the solution.
But I do know that the difficulties in discussing these issues and the propensity of folks to label others is going to be a part of what we explore.
Equal funding for unequal student bodies is not equitable.
The playing field is unequal before the kids walk in the door.
Increasingly larger amounts of school funding has done little to address the underlying problems. Bill Gates spent $1 billion learning that the hard way. The Kansas City Schools experiment also found that unlimited amounts of funding did not address the problems.
"Abstract: To improve the education of black students and to encourage desegregation, a federal judge ordered the Kansas City (Missouri) school district to come up with a cost-is-no-object educational plan and ordered local and state taxpayers to find the money to pay for it. Kansas City spent as much as $11,700 per pupil, more money per pupil on a cost of living adjusted basis than any other of the 280 largest school districts in the country. The money paid for higher teachers' salaries, 15 new schools, and such amenities as an Olympic-sized swimming pool, television studios, a robotics laboratory, a wildlife sanctuary and zoo, a model United Nations, and field trips to Mexico and Senegal. The student-teacher ratio became 12 or 13 to 1, the lowest of any major school district in the country. In spite of all of this, achievement test scores did not rise, the gap between black and white students did not narrow, and there was less, rather than more, integration. The experiment in Kansas City suggests that educational problems cannot be solved by throwing money at them. The structural problems of the educational system are far more than a lack of material resources. In Kansas City the focus on desegregation diverted attention from the real problem of low academic achievement. Similar things are occurring in Sausalito (California), where the affluent school system is still not enough to bring about high achievement." Money and School Performance. Lessons from the Kansas City Desegregation Experiment. Policy Analysis No. 298.
Quote:
I don't pretend to know the school funding in IL. But the urban vs. suburban disparity in funding is standard - and is neither the problem nor, alone, the solution.
Here in Illinois, the disparity is almost always the reverse of what most people think it would be. Chicago's schools are funded at more per student than are most suburban schools (e.g., Naperville's schools). People, including Obama (who has lived in Chicago so should have known better), assume Chicago's public schools are underfunded. They're not. Just like Washington, D.C.'s public schools aren't underfunded.
Quote:
But I do know that the difficulties in discussing these issues and the propensity of folks to label others is going to be a part of what we explore.
It's too bad Obama chose to specifically scapegoat 'whites' in the suburbs, which are actually quite diverse. It's part of who he is, though, so I understand why it happened.
Increasingly larger amounts of school funding has done little to address the underlying problems. Bill Gates spent $1 billion learning that the hard way. The Kansas City Schools experiment also found that unlimited amounts of funding did not address the problems.
Here in Illinois, the disparity is almost always the reverse of what most people think it would be. Chicago's schools are funded at more per student than are most suburban schools (e.g., Naperville's schools). People, including Obama (who has lived in Chicago so should have known better), assume Chicago's public schools are underfunded. They're not. Just like Washington, D.C.'s public schools aren't underfunded.
As I said - the funding is neither the problem nor the solution.
Unlimited funding would solve the problem, if and only if it is used appropriately. Otherwise, it's like pouring it down a funnel.
When I said what I did about the urban vs. suburban funding, I explicitly meant (but was not clear) that the big city schools almost always spend more per kid than the other schools, on average.
There are bunches of reasons for that - had it as a part of my school funding class at the Harvard Ed School many moons ago. But, yes, there are misunderstandings. It depends where one is coming from. The folks who don't know the money assume they are underfunded. The folks who do assume they are overfunded.
Both are wrong.
p.s. The Rochester Schools did an experiment that showed that greater teacher autonomy of curriculum, higher pay, and allowing the principals and superintendent to get rid of bad teachers with little or no difficulty also did not solve their school problems.
The number of myths about what will fix our schools, if only we would do it, is perhaps larger than the number of myths about what Democrats and Republicans believe or are like!
As I said - the funding is neither the problem nor the solution.
Unlimited funding would solve the problem, if and only if it is used appropriately. Otherwise, it's like pouring it down a funnel.
When I said what I did about the urban vs. suburban funding, I explicitly meant (but was not clear) that the big city schools almost always spend more per kid than the other schools, on average.
There are bunches of reasons for that - had it as a part of my school funding class at the Harvard Ed School many moons ago. But, yes, there are misunderstandings. It depends where one is coming from. The folks who don't know the money assume they are underfunded. The folks who do assume they are overfunded.
Both are wrong.
I'm not so sure about that. When schools are funded at high levels, as are Chicago's and Washington, D.C.'s schools, and it becomes apparent that spending ever increasing amounts of money via the schools doesn't address the problems, perhaps it is appropriate to view them as overfunded and that some of that money needs to be reallocated to other agencies that provide needed services.
Quote:
p.s. The Rochester Schools did an experiment that showed that greater teacher autonomy of curriculum, higher pay, and allowing the principals and superintendent to get rid of bad teachers with little or no difficulty also did not solve their school problems.
The number of myths about what will fix our schools, if only we would do it, is perhaps larger than the number of myths about what Democrats and Republicans believe or are like!
Yes - it's a very difficult problem. Obama's erroneous singling out of 'white' suburban taxpayers on the public schools funding issue betrays his racism and his quickness to automatically accept misperceptions as true without even bothering to become informed.
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.
