Quote:
Originally Posted by bUU
It isn't irony. It is insidiousness. First, the richest 25 percent of school districts receive 15.6 percent more funds from state and local governments per student than the poorest 25 percent of school districts, according to the Department of Education. So it depends on which two districts you choose to compare. I wonder why you chose those two districts. Could it be because they serve your personal narrative? Your post shows clearly how easy it is to manipulate data by cherry-picking two specific districts for the comparison between rich and poor.
The reality is that federal funding generally helps even the gaps that do exist between rich and poor districts, but just barely. So, the question remains why, given that funding is roughly even between rich and poor districts, why is there still an education gap. Folks intend on punishing the victim will make up all manner of ridiculous excuses for refusing to acknowledge the fact that providing a comparable education will cost substantially more in districts with significant numbers of at-risk children, in districts where physical plant security itself is more expensive, etc. The reality is that it takes a lot more money to overcome challenges visited on the children due to the realities of the neighborhood in which they live, their parents' lack of educational achievement, etc. The most bombastic of those who enjoy punishing the victim will proudly state that the children deserve to have been born into a poor family; that the children deserve to be punished for the circumstances of their parents; that the injustice visited on the children is someone else's problem.
|
We wouldn't have "at-risk" children if people didn't
choose to create them. Although there are individual anecdotes of bad luck or injustice, the essential truth is that for the vast majority of Americans, poverty is a
choice. It is selected, developed, and grown by bad personal philosophy and poor individual character.
The solution to poverty is contained in good character, rational
choices, and doing things in the right order. That means NO KIDS until you are 30+, married, stable, and have lots of money to raise them. And if bad luck or circumstance never put you in a position to be able to find a suitable mate and financially afford having children, you should simply and rationally never have them. No amount of redistributive theft has ever, or will ever, correct bad character and irrational personal choices.
Furthermore and accordingly, there is no rational basis for using public policy to address income inequality. Income SHOULD NOT BE EQUAL. Income should be based on individual value, not on equality. If a person is not happy with their wealth and income, he or she needs to address that on an
individual basis by becoming
more valuable to others so that others will
freely want to pay them for their value.
As for children born to wayward parents who make bad choices, the situation will be more of a challenge to them personally, but they do not accrue rights to the property or wealth of others as a result of their bad luck. Bad luck does not create the right to steal from others.