Actually, if you read my posts, my argument boils down to “throwing money at social problems doesn’r work, so screw all of you”.
You’re still neglecting the race issue. Countries with higher social mobility also tend to be more homogenous. The United States is a racially diverse nation and, quite simply, we see less upward mobility among certain races. And it has little to do with a lack of public funding, because there’s plenty of that already.
You’re wasting your time. They’ll just start bussing the kids from the bad neighborhood into your kid’s school, and you’ll have paid high $ for a house with a bunch of hooligans in the classroom. (I speak from personal experience. My wife teaches at this school.)
I’d say something very similar about Canada, except just that the standard deviation of outcomes is smaller thanks to the highway robbery taxation at medium to upper income levels (in pretty much everywhere but Alberta).
And now its a dog eat dog world. Continued technological advancements, demographic changes, etc. At my age in my mid 20s I feel I’m going to have to be at the top of my game my whole career just to stay employed, let alone do well. I can’t afford to be paying for everybody else too. I’d like to say I care about others, but tax revenue just gets wasted so much it’s hard to say it’s worth it or that the money is going to a good use.
Talk about apples to oranges. The Abecedarian project involved 111 preschool children. Abbott Districts are real-world experiments that have been going on for nearly 30 years, involving hundreds of thousands of kids. Despite higher funding than the average school district in the state, Abbott districts continue to lag the rest of the state in performance. The only difference the additional money seems to make is in elementary school, and that difference reverses itself by the time the kids leave middle school.
So while both Abecedarian and Abbott seems to suggest that money can help level the playing field for kids under the age of ten, Abbott shows pretty clearly that in the long-run that money is wasted. Find a way to stop the advances from reversing, and then we can talk about funding.
God forbid a poor kid goes to your public school! What horror!!
My district doesn’t bus. Incidentally, I was bussed as a kid. It was ridiculous. I had to ride 45 minutes each way to go the some lame school in the ghetto that was self-segregated, anyway. I don’t think there were any local thugs in my “gifted program” classes. Even on the playground, there was a natural segregation between the groups of kids.
It was absolutely stupid and partially shaped some of my opinions on this subject. If they try that with my kid, he’s going to private school. It’s complete BS.
Abecedarian shows sustained gains in outcomes. I’m really struggling to understand why folks oppose equal funding per student IN PUBLIC SCHOOLS. That’s all I’m advocating as a start. The quality of your child’s teacher shouldn’t be determined by your property tax bill.
Double post.
I don’t care about ten or twenty “poor kids”. I’m more concerned about my kid being exposed to a lot of what goes along with being a “poor kid” these days, like much higher levels of drug and alcohol abuse, and pregnancy. I would prefer that my kid not be influenced that those behaviors are acceptable.
Good point. Perhaps we should just do away with public schools altogether.
What’s wrong with drugs, alcohol abuse, and pregnancy?
Charter schools with increased control given to the faculty to expel kids who aren’t holding up to their end of the bargain (not being disruptive). Funding vouchers for parents so they can put “their taxdollars” to the places they think are best for their children. IWe need to remove the link between zip code and education.
Yeah, the third world is a wonderful place to live.
\
They have done very well in places that had terrible public school standards. New Orleans is a great example because they took Katrina as a reason to make lots of changes. Houston has also been experimenting with expanded KIPP schools, which are basically the same thing.
Of course the teachers unions oppose it because it puts the kids first, and not their jobs or pensions.
Also in fairness, I don’t really see anyone specifically opposing equal funding to public schools. It’s more that they do not want co-mingling of different quality of students. This does have some practical benefits; for instance, more competitive students can go to schools which offer more advanced classes, while disadvantaged students can get more help in certain areas like ESL. However, it’s still fairly straightforward to me that equal spending on education would still result in a substantial achievement gap based on socioeconomic status.
Plus (and this is happening at the 4th grade level), I don’t want somebody telling my daugther that he’s going to rape her (really happened), throwing staplers at her in the middle of class (really happened), or seeing somebody screaming at the teacher “YOU FUCKING WHITE BITCH!!! I’M GONNA FUCKING KILL YOU!!!” (really happened–the white bitch was my wife).
Edit - I understand completely that this could happen in an affluent, white neighborhood. But every time something like this happens (and I mean every time, without exception), it’s one of the bussed-in kids.
And this is at the 4th grade level. I shudder to think of what happens in junior high or high school.
You’ve become very hostile over the last couple weeks. I’m having doubts about your Canadianism. On one hand you’re a socialist, so that checks out. On the other, you haven’t apologized for, well, anything. Now, god damn it, stop disagreeing with people and say you’re sorry!
That’s why I advocated going beyond just primary school and addressing some of those socioeconomic issues earlier. Having access to quality daycare, especially in high risk areas, would be huge. Imagine if the 2 year old in central Detroit was getting solid early education and nutrition… They’d be entering primary education on a more level playing field. And again, a real maternity leave for mothers would go a long way. Of course the rich folks will buy supplementary study aids and tutor time for their kids and yes, it will result in inequality. But that’s much less an issue than kids dropping out or not having basic employable skills. Civilised countries have a duty to provide that minimum level for all members. The idea that some ultra wealthy can splurge more on a few kids is not pragmatically a concern.
My point is that the level of spending per puil doesn’t matter much. The US has been throwing more and more money at schools and teachers over the years with no measurable result.
The idea that the US lags in economic mobilty vs. nations like Canada or Norway is a bit silly. Those nations are much culturally and racially homogenous, and IMO that’s the main driver of economic mobility. It’s just not achievable in a nation as diverse as the US, so why keep throwing away cash?
In the US, for example, being white isn’t what gets you ahead. Being *Asian* is what gets you ahead. Why? Because Asians have higher average IQs and most come from a background that values temperance and hard work. Asians are actually the highest earning demographic in the United States by a pretty significant margin. That disproves the idea that racism holds back minorities and lends credence to the idea that those best equipped for upward mobility in a modern economy are most likely to attain it.
I can imagine a 2 year old getting solid early education and nutrition–all on the taxpayer’s dime. But do you really think the state can really solve the problems of Detroit’s youth? Do you really trust the government to do what’s best for 2 year old Tyrone?
On the other hand, you could set up a privately-run daycare. Do you really think Tyrone’s mom is going to pay you? I imagine that you’ll be working for free.
I agree–real maternity leave for mothers will go a long way. A long way in incentivizing employers to not hire any woman between the ages of 16 and 45, that is. If I have to pay a woman to stay home for six months and do nothing, you can rest assured that I won’t be hiring any women at all. Ever.