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.
When it comes to school choice, the choice is always on the part of the school, which is why lotteries are often used when demand exceeds supply.
Schools tend to perform as well as the demographic from which they draw their students. All children deserve the same quality of education that Barron Trump receives. If it really takes upwards of $40,000 per year per student to provide a quality education, then why are most public schools in economically depressed areas funded at a quarter of that? It is because in most areas, school funding is based on local property tax revenue. This is not the case in other countries where school funding is more uniform throughout the country. They have schools that serve poor children, but the schools themselves are not poor.
In my state, where segregationist schools popped up in response to Brown v. the Board of Education, the quality of the public schools appears to depend on where the middle class sends its children. Where the middle class fills the public schools, as in my town, the schools are top-rated and all children receive a quality education, with many going on to top universities around the country. There are waiting lists of teachers who are willing to take a pay cut to teach there.
Where the middle class sends its children to private schools, as in the city where I work, the public schools are crumbling, there are chronic shortages of up-to-date textbooks and lab materials, and the district has few takers for the $5,000 signing bonus that they offer with their contracts to new teachers, despite salaries that are significantly higher than the surrounding districts. At the school where I have taught for nearly three decades, nearly half the staff are one-and-done teachers on unrenewable temporary licenses.
A disheartening obstacle in improving education in the United States is the apparent acceptance that some children are not worth enough to ensure that their school experience is up to the standards that most people would want for their own children. It is another way to ensure that the haves have more and the have-nots have less, thus also ensuring a ready supply of low-skilled workers. If we were serious about improving education, we would look to strengthening our weakest schools rather than trying to run a parallel system that would further exacerbate the current situation.
This should not be a "race" issue. All people should be able to have choices for their children's education, and not just richer people. I do not see why this should have anything to do with the predominant skin color of a community in question. Clearly, that is how Democrats have been approaching this, however.
Everyone should have choices regarding their children's schools. The lack of alternatives has been nothing short of catastrophic on generation after generation of lower income students who the Democrat left has intransigently refused to allow to escape this cycle.
This is the civil rights issue of our time. There is literally nothing being proposed that has the power to do more to transform the lives of disadvantaged communities over the longer term by giving their children access to educational alternatives and the improved career and economic prospects that comes from a quality education.
If there is to be school choice, then one of the choices should be a high-quality neighborhood school. Most current school choice measures appear to be more about abandoning the public schools than about ensuring that they are able to meet the needs of all children.
When it comes to school choice, the choice is always on the part of the school, which is why lotteries are often used when demand exceeds supply.
Schools tend to perform as well as the demographic from which they draw their students. All children deserve the same quality of education that Barron Trump receives. If it really takes upwards of $40,000 per year per student to provide a quality education, then why are most public schools in economically depressed areas funded at a quarter of that? It is because in most areas, school funding is based on local property tax revenue. This is not the case in other countries where school funding is more uniform throughout the country. They have schools that serve poor children, but the schools themselves are not poor.
In my state, where segregationist schools popped up in response to Brown v. the Board of Education, the quality of the public schools appears to depend on where the middle class sends its children. Where the middle class fills the public schools, as in my town, the schools are top-rated and all children receive a quality education, with many going on to top universities around the country. There are waiting lists of teachers who are willing to take a pay cut to teach there.
Where the middle class sends its children to private schools, as in the city where I work, the public schools are crumbling, there are chronic shortages of up-to-date textbooks and lab materials, and the district has few takers for the $5,000 signing bonus that they offer with their contracts to new teachers, despite salaries that are significantly higher than the surrounding districts. At the school where I have taught for nearly three decades, nearly half the staff are one-and-done teachers on unrenewable temporary licenses.
A disheartening obstacle in improving education in the United States is the apparent acceptance that some children are not worth enough to ensure that their school experience is up to the standards that most people would want for their own children. It is another way to ensure that the haves have more and the have-nots have less, thus also ensuring a ready supply of low-skilled workers. If we were serious about improving education, we would look to strengthening our weakest schools rather than trying to run a parallel system that would further exacerbate the current situation.
wrong. utterly and completely wrong.
we have completely proven that more money doesnt equal better education. The lack of middle class kids in bad public schools isnt a cause for bad public schools.
thats just nuts.
the number one problem with education is the lack of options. Options are opposed by the democrat party.
the number two thing wrong with education is public schools are unable to fire bad teachers because of public sector unions. PSUs are supported by the democrat party
I don't know what the hell you're blathering on about, but you'll find both conservative and liberal taxpayers - especially parents - on the side of maintaining local control. Heck, most affluent districts are as conservative as they come. Think like a parent: If you buy a house in an affluent district 3 blocks from the neighborhood school, and you're paying $10,000 in taxes so that your kid can go to that school, why would you support a parent sending their kid from another district, and paying much less in taxes, to your neighborhood school?
Think like a school superintendent: When you say "school choice", do you mean within the local school district? Are you proposing to abolish local school districts? How does that affect funding? How does that affect local taxation of school districts, and state funding?
So, just for the sake of your incomplete argument, let's just say that tomorrow every parent gets to determine where their kid goes to school. How does that work? If parents decide they want to send their kid to a neighboring school district, does that displace the kids that live within that district? If so, what happens to the kids who are displaced, when their parents wanted them to go to their neighborhood school? What happens if only a few parents want their kids to attend a specific school - does it operate at reduced capacity at a higher cost, or does it shut down, and then what happens to those kids?
This is why you can't just throw out meaningless terms like "school choice" and "school vouchers". There are too many questions to be answered first - a lot of planning, a lot of questions to be answered, a lot of shifting of both mindset and money. You have to follow the money.
Before school choice can happen, there needs to be a radical overhaul in how schools are funded. Property owners in a high-income, high property tax district aren't going to sit still while parents in lower-income, lower property tax districts choose to send their children to the more affluent district.
Fix the economic inequities in the public school system first, then you can talk about school choice.
Should local school districts continue to exist? Should local taxation be shifted to a state-wide funding stream? Should lower-income schools receive more money per pupil than higher income schools, and how is that fair? How do you balance local control with equitable funding?
Lots of questions to be answered first. School districts have been fighting the funding battle for decades. If you have an equitable solution, by all means contact your state representatives.
Inner-city school districts spend more per pupil than any other school districts. The additional spending hasn't fixed the problem. Give everyone a choice. No more trapping kids in high-spending but low-performing schools.
So we are supposed to provide spots in our schools for kids who’s parents have taught them no discipline or respect? Ever heard that one bad apple can spoil the whole bunch? What happens when you introduce a bunch of bad apples?
When it comes to school choice, the choice is always on the part of the school, which is why lotteries are often used when demand exceeds supply.
Schools tend to perform as well as the demographic from which they draw their students. All children deserve the same quality of education that Barron Trump receives. If it really takes upwards of $40,000 per year per student to provide a quality education, then why are most public schools in economically depressed areas funded at a quarter of that? It is because in most areas, school funding is based on local property tax revenue. This is not the case in other countries where school funding is more uniform throughout the country. They have schools that serve poor children, but the schools themselves are not poor.
In my state, where segregationist schools popped up in response to Brown v. the Board of Education, the quality of the public schools appears to depend on where the middle class sends its children. Where the middle class fills the public schools, as in my town, the schools are top-rated and all children receive a quality education, with many going on to top universities around the country. There are waiting lists of teachers who are willing to take a pay cut to teach there.
Where the middle class sends its children to private schools, as in the city where I work, the public schools are crumbling, there are chronic shortages of up-to-date textbooks and lab materials, and the district has few takers for the $5,000 signing bonus that they offer with their contracts to new teachers, despite salaries that are significantly higher than the surrounding districts. At the school where I have taught for nearly three decades, nearly half the staff are one-and-done teachers on unrenewable temporary licenses.
A disheartening obstacle in improving education in the United States is the apparent acceptance that some children are not worth enough to ensure that their school experience is up to the standards that most people would want for their own children. It is another way to ensure that the haves have more and the have-nots have less, thus also ensuring a ready supply of low-skilled workers. If we were serious about improving education, we would look to strengthening our weakest schools rather than trying to run a parallel system that would further exacerbate the current situation.
We have been hearing this same song from the Democrat left for 50+ years now that they have been in control in these areas. State taxes are high, educational spending at the district level is very high. We have been blindly and indiscriminately throwing money at these problems for decades under Democrat party leadership. The result has been straight up failure.
Another 50 years of protecting the "heritage" of the failed schools in these poverty stricken areas by throwing money at them is beyond stupid. The metric of success has to be educational outcome, not "how much are we spending?" Which is already a lot, by the way.
It is time for some academic re-gentrification with regards to education of children in disadvantaged areas. More of the same tried and failed policies is not the answer. There have already been multiple generations of people who have been deprived of these basic opportunities - many times not even being taught how to read. Generations of lives have been wasted by Democrats who have championed these consistently failed policies.
There has to be another way. There is in fact. School choice. Give them choices as to where to send their children to school, and do not put them into 12 years of academic lockdown with not even a chance to learn, develop and to grow.
Location: By the sea, by the sea, by the beautiful sea
68,330 posts, read 54,419,437 times
Reputation: 40736
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spartacus713
School choice truly is the pivotal civil rights issue of our time. For anyone who truly desires to see people in disadvantaged communities given the best possible start as far as receiving a basic education, developing skills and doing all we reasonably can to give everyone a fair shot at the American Dream, providing people the opportunity to choose where their kids go to school is truly a no-brainer.
The people blocking this are the Democrat left. Because they are control freaks, who do not care about results or how their policies destroy people's lives. The are obsessed with single-minded, centralized control, results and consequences be damned.
Enough is enough. All of these riots, looting, protests about "systemic racism". It is not possible to equalize the outcomes in everyone's lives without locking everyone in their own prison cell and bringing everyone down to the lowest level possible. It is possible to give people choices that allow them alternatives to schools that have failed them consistently - under Democrat party leadership - for 50+ years now, with no prospects for any significant positive change in sight. Just more of the same.
It is time for school choice. Unless you like a continual procession of riots, looting, arson and divisive race conflict. Sadly, it looks like some people would prefer this kind of strife and conflict, because all they really care about is being in a position of control.
Specific examples of just HOW they are blocking anything as WELL as some specific Republican efforts at solving the problem that are being blocked?
Or should we just chalk it up as yet another the left! tirade with no basis in fact?
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.
