Same here. But it really didn't ramp up until after I graduated in 78.Judge S Hugh Dillion ordered the bussing of poor inner city kids to my school in the 70s.
It did not increase my quality of
education to say the least.
Same here. But it really didn't ramp up until after I graduated in 78.Judge S Hugh Dillion ordered the bussing of poor inner city kids to my school in the 70s.
It did not increase my quality of
education to say the least.
Not every student in poor school districts is a bad student, and probably would be better students if they had better teachers and better resources. Like I said, not all, not most, but many. I'd like to see as many of those be able to break the cycle as possible.
I'm kinda torn on how to fund schools. I think it's a problem that poor school districts under-fund schools, and then under educate kids, and then they grow up to be poor adults, and then they send their kids to the same ****ty schools they went to, and the cycle continues. I'd like to see the education system become more consistent across school districts. I lived in Missippi for 8 years and I'll tell you their public schools are ****. They're one of the poorest states in the nation and they have one of the worst public school systems. It's not the kids fault that they have ****ty schools. They don't have a lot of choice but to grow up under-educated.
That sounds like something that really needs fixed. But how do you fix that? As you move the financial responsibility up the government levels, you cede more control over what your kids are taught to those higher levels. Do we want those decisions left to federal, state, or local governments? There's something to be said for nationwide consistency, but then that comes at the expense of local sensibilities. I think it's a hard problem to solve.
Government should not be in the education business.
The downside far outweighs the good.
I am sure this has been said earlier in this thread, but one more:
The "American Dream" used to mean home ownership, but if you have to pay property tax, you don't own your home, you just rent it from the county. Also trying to figure out why my 91 year old mother has to pay property taxes for a school she never used and never had a child use? Fees for police and fire protection ok, but after a while taxing people for owning property is in my not so humble opinion, unAmerican.
I've made that argument before (I don't have kids, so why do I need to support schools) but I have kind of come around to the idea that it does (in theory) improve society overall if kids are educated. Key point being "in theory".
I could write a similar story from my prospective as a student.The problem isn't money, in these poor areas.
Have a read from a teacher who worked in multiple poor areas, and recounts his stories about his experiences.
https://www.reddit.com/r/TrueOffMyC...i_used_to_teach_in_a_black_inner_city_school/
Warning: Reality may upset the easily offended.
If your mother’s home is assessed at less than (200,000?) she should qualify for the property tax circuit breaker which relieves her of the tax burden.I am sure this has been said earlier in this thread, but one more:
The "American Dream" used to mean home ownership, but if you have to pay property tax, you don't own your home, you just rent it from the county. Also trying to figure out why my 91 year old mother has to pay property taxes for a school she never used and never had a child use? Fees for police and fire protection ok, but after a while taxing people for owning property is in my not so humble opinion, unAmerican.
I don’t disagree with the sentiment but that would only stack up more people at the bottom, which isn’t good for anybody.
If your mother’s home is assessed at less than (200,000?) she should qualify for the property tax circuit breaker which relieves her of the tax burden.
Oddly enough they do not apply this automatically, she will have to ask for it.
Every advantage helps. For one thing, having straight A’s in a more academically rigorous school could mean the difference in opportunities later. For better scholarships, more college options. Not to mention, often a better selection of classes during high school.Obviously that's true...it also doesn't mean they would be better students elsewhere if everthing else in their life stays the same.
BIGOT!!!I believe the family is the foundation of any society, but I guess the big picture question is how to combat people stacking up at the bottom while maintaining free markets?
Are you saying there shouldn't be publicly funded schools, or dictates from Indianapolis and DC as to how they operate?Government should not be in the education business.
The downside far outweighs the good.
Homeschooling cost less?! Who would have thought.Personally I don't see direct correlation between money invested and outcomes produced when it comes to education. Home educators generally spend far less than either private or public schools. I've seen numbers quoted as being between $500 to $3,000 per student per year Nationally for homeschooling, but could not find official stats from a .gov agency that tracks such things. By comparison, Indiana paid about $10,045 per student as a whole in 2017, per this article. Illinois with its marvelous Chicago Public School System spends $14,180 per student and the results are, uh, hilarious. And that doesn't even get into the fact that about half of those expenses are usually wasted on buildings and the like which are largely irrelevant to actual education.
Kids need to learn more than the 3R's - they need to learn how to work with others (i.e. extra-circular activities & sports), they need to actually see things in motion and touch, and do (labs), they need to be well rounded, because even in college there's a ton that have no idea what career is right for them. You're solution is vague like Huxley's - split them into alphas and beta and gammas.In my view, the essentials of education require exactly 0 football stadiums, pools, science laboratories, and workshops. Generally speaking, the basics of reading, English, and mathematics up to basic multiplication and division require maybe half a day's worth of time each schoolday for a group of children to learn everything we usually teach them up to about grades 5-6. This gives the child sufficient skills to work at a Wal-Mart or Mcdonald's (heck if we can toss in a manners course it would actually be an improvement!) and fulfills our "need" as a public to school children and provide them a means to care for themselves. At that point, assuming a transition period from our current total public system of course, we would then encourage the development of training academies, apprenticeships, entreprenurial encouragement/training, and other forms of private, focused education which is intended to zero-in on the paying student and develop them according to their (and naturally their parents) wishes for the future. Let a private facility build a state-of-the-art science lab for the future NASA employees and let the children interested in that line of work be able to learn in an environment that is designed to foster their ambitions rather than having them waste their time analyzing The Old Man and the Sea. Let the kid ready for the NFL by 15 learn finance, investing, and brand management in between rounds of high quality coaching to prepare him for the common pitfalls of that life.
I probably should have read this first - then I wouldn't have taken it as seriously.I'm fully aware that that will never be allowed to happen as public education is easily one of the most useful statist concepts ever invented for managing a populace and no political party will ever want to weaken it, but there it is. Nothing in my research into education suggests that sticking with our current models on educating a child make sense, either in terms of output or the costs involved.