Well Zesty, there’s a reason I said “I think” and not “inferred from the table below.”
In my opinion , we haven’t properly identified the problem. Socioeconomic status is at the heart of the issue, not race (don’t confuse correlation with causation). Therefore, affirmative action isn’t the appropriate solution. Socioeconomic status needs to have less of an effect on primary education opportunities. One solution would be to increase educational funding to the lower socioeconomic areas, possibly adding some incentives/benefits for teachers in order to draw better talent.
“One solution would be to increase educational funding to the lower socioeconomic areas, possibly adding some incentives/benefits for teachers in order to draw better talent”
I 100% agree with your solution and would add to that there should funding for support services connected to children and their families from these lower economic areas. But I don’t see people jumping on that bandwagon. People will say that you’re taking money away from other kids.
Let’s say we funnel five times more money into poor school districts. We’ll still end up with a bunch of kids from lousy parents who have all kinds of social problems and waste all the advantages in those schools. The problem is not just about resource allocation. It’s also about the cultural difference between people who succeed in school and people who don’t.
It’s funny that the other thread about happy ending massages mentions that one worker takes it so she can send her kid to medical school. The massage therapist at the place where I go sometimes (not happy ending) just sent her son to Harvard. They are poor as shit and the mom doesn’t even speak English. However, they still succeed somehow. I would rather selectively subsidize this kid, who will become a doctor or something, rather than broadly throw money at a bunch of random kids who will not appreciate it at all (in fact, this does happen - through magnet schoos, for instance).
To improve the education of poor people, the kids really need to be separated from the sucks environment that they grow up in. That means no hanging out in crime street corners. No more dressing like punks. No more loser parents who are bad role models. Send the kids to military school where someone will kick the shit out of them. When they go home, the kids have to say “omg, this place actually sucks and all the people here are losers”. Or something else drastic along those lines. There is no such thing as helping poor people improve without forcing them to realize that their culture is dysfunctional. Nor can we force people to invest in their futures while giving them the freedom that allowed them to stagnate in the first place.
lol it was the same teacher. funny thing. real funny thing. the guy was talking about how poorer neighborhoods were benefitting from us. All the funding we should have received went to Inglewood, and they have shitter teachers. He doesnt understand that the more money you pay, the better quality teachers you get. Case and point, he tried to teach us history by watching roots. lol
Like tupac said, he is tired of beign poor, but even worse he’s black.
“No more loser parents who are bad role models.”…Again genetic lottery, we don’t get to choose our parents. And you can’t send all the poor kids to military school forcibly; there is no constitutional basis for this (wouldn’t hold up in court).
“I would rather selectively subsidize this kid, who will become a doctor or something, rather than broadly throw money at a bunch of random kids who will not appreciate it at all”…Isn’t this essentially affirmative action, which people here detest?
inkybinky,
“Great idea. Because we didn’t already dump trillions on these programs over the past 60 years.”…I’ll actually provide numbers not hyperbole; the Dept of Ed which funds a lot of the government programs/grants for poor school districts, etc has a annual budget of $77 Billion, while we spend $615 Billion on Defense related costs.
I have a hard time believing that a teacher, whose brother is a fireman, received an essay about firemen from a student and didn’t realize the exact same essay was turned in a year later by the first student’s brother. I have two sisters, 4 and 5 years older than me, and I was compared to them by every teacher we had in common.
I’m just pointing in the general direction of a solution. You don’t have to get hung up on the specifics. For instance, where military school is concerned, I generally mean that people need to be separated from their unhealthy environments. This could be accomplished in different ways. Many people do this voluntarily by attending college.
People in worse situations need to be separated at an earlier age. Life will never be fair. We can help alleviate this unfairness, but only if people are willing to accept some compromise in return. This is the whole concept of education: you spend a lot of time learning so you can become more successful in the future. If you are disadvantaged, you can still succeed, but you must spend more time learning.
Unproductive people must also be made aware that their culture is broken; this suggestion is unpalatable to many people due to PC reasons. The fact that you reject whole concepts based on specificities shows that you are not opening your mind to solutions.
“I would rather selectively subsidize this kid, who will become a doctor or something, rather than broadly throw money at a bunch of random kids who will not appreciate it at all”…………………Isn’t this essentially affirmative action, which people here detest?
No - it is not. This kid probably scored high in tests despite growing up in relative poverty. He is from a race that is harmed by affirmative action. I am proposing meritocracy, not affirmative action (which fyi, I am not completely opposed to. It just should not be applied in the blanket manner that it is today).
I’m not sure what comparing the DoE’s budget to the DoD’s budget has to do with anything, but Abbott Districts in NJ have accomplished nothing despite being in existence for 30 years. I realize it’s only one state and I have no idea if other states have been more successful, but for the past 30 years Abbott districts have spent an average of 20% more per student than non-Abbott districts, and the performance gap in those districts has not closed even one percentage point at the high school level. The additional funds do seem to make a difference at the elementary school level, but by the time those kids get to high school, the gains disappear. I don’t know what the answer is, but it doesn’t appear to be a problem we can buy our way out of.
How much do the states/counties/cities spend on education? How many other programs are there that are supposed to “level the playing field” that are not under the purview of the DOE?
i mean i have a sister 5 years younger than me and teachers remembered me too. but you and i are prolly different from the brother. the brother wasnt very good at english, new to the country, and not entirely social. different circumstance, different teachers, different relationships. but the person who told me is pretty credible. i guess you could say i am lying, but i wouldnt kno how to prove it. lol
I think we are forgetting that education ALREADY helps reduce inequality by a huge amount, and is already extremely expensive. However, tweaking the system more might not have the same effect per cost.
Lottery? Bullshit. It’s total ignorance. Doesn’t matter what the genetic makeup of the parents, the kid can turn out to be a good citizen. Maybe even a genius.
It appears the key to getting accepted into all 8 of the Ivy League schools is to be an immigrant or the child of an immigrant (preferably from an African country).
“Lottery? Bullshit. It’s total ignorance. Doesn’t matter what the genetic makeup of the parents, the kid can turn out to be a good citizen. Maybe even a genius.”
The data indicates the exact opposite; the mean reversion is that if you have poor parents, you are more likely stay poor. See quote below from Boston Fed’s report; if your parents were in the bottom 20% of income, you will most likely stay in the bottom 20%.
“But relative mobility rates remained flat…Higher rates of relative mobility may mean a more competitive labor market, resulting in higher rates of growth and therefore higher rates of absolute mobility”
I don’t doubt the statistics. Poor parents create poor kids. But poor parents can create rich kids. Highly intelligent ones. So the kids don’t have to be poor. The problem is that people are very ignorant.