Choose your kids school, be labelled a racist

Page 3 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

MovingTarget

Diamond Member
Jun 22, 2003
9,002
115
106
You know what would? If we kicked out anyone who wears a doorag. Too bad they don't have the balls to in public schools. I heard they wear uniforms in charter schools.

The public schools are loathe to kick anyone out due to legal and financial concerns (as federal dollars are based on enrollment). Private and some charter schools do not have to deal with as many of those same concerns, so it is easier for them to kick out disruptive and/or poor performing students. However, there are many public school districts across the nation that have adopted a school uniform policy. It does help to foster a better learning environment and lifts financial strain on parents as it saves on clothing in the long run. It is truly a step in the right direction.
 

piasabird

Lifer
Feb 6, 2002
17,168
60
91
Look at the big city schools and see how well the government runs them. Just wait till that same inept government is running your healthcare!

Do you have freedom-phobia?
 
Last edited:

Hacp

Lifer
Jun 8, 2005
13,923
2
81
Look at the big city schools and see how well the government runs them. Just wait till that same inept government is running your healthcare!

Do you have freedom-phobia?

Its not even the government mainly. Its that once you make everything free, the undesirables start coming out hoarding and demanding services like they paid for it.D:D:
 

CallMeJoe

Diamond Member
Jul 30, 2004
6,938
5
81
I find it interesting that P&N posters who vehemently oppose giving taxpayers' money to improve health care or provide food for the poor are all so willing to give those same taxpayers' money to support private schools...
 

LumbergTech

Diamond Member
Sep 15, 2005
3,622
1
0
I find it interesting that P&N posters who vehemently oppose giving taxpayers' money to improve health care or provide food for the poor are all so willing to give those same taxpayers' money to support private schools...

how dare you point that out
 

n yusef

Platinum Member
Feb 20, 2005
2,158
1
0
You know what would? If we kicked out anyone who wears a doorag. Too bad they don't have the balls to in public schools. I heard they wear uniforms in charter schools.

Because doorags are the real problem with our education system.
 

Robor

Elite Member
Oct 9, 1999
16,979
0
76
You know what would? If we kicked out anyone who wears a doorag. Too bad they don't have the balls to in public schools. I heard they wear uniforms in charter schools.

I'm all for cracking down on gangs.
 

Robor

Elite Member
Oct 9, 1999
16,979
0
76
Right, but if we can either pay 10k to send a kid to public school or give the parents 10k to apply to a private school, why not give them the choice if the price is the same.

Where is this $10K going to come from? If you're talking about taking it from what's being given to the public schools where will they be funded?
 

StageLeft

No Lifer
Sep 29, 2000
70,150
5
0
I find it interesting that P&N posters who vehemently oppose giving taxpayers' money to improve health care or provide food for the poor are all so willing to give those same taxpayers' money to support private schools...
Presumably it's only if less is spent on the public.

Where I live about $10-12k/year is spent on each student's education. And it varies between poor and good depending on district and other factors. However, I can send them to a quality private school for much less. I would far prefer to have the option and keep that cash to spend where it can go further.
 

Robor

Elite Member
Oct 9, 1999
16,979
0
76
Actually, I think real competition would help public schools more than any amount of money, because real competition drives schools to actually do better. A parent that cares can tell if one local school provides a better education than another. The federal government cannot. Instead, it sends out a standardized test to determine which schools are doing well. Competition drives schools to actually provide a better education. Federal money largely drives schools to teach kids to pass a standardized test.

Are you saying there is no competition with public schools now (serious question - I don't have kids)? I've heard local parents talk about having to make a list of which schools they preferred their kids attend. If that's the case it seems like competition already exists.
 

StageLeft

No Lifer
Sep 29, 2000
70,150
5
0
Are you saying there is no competition with public schools now (serious question - I don't have kids)? I've heard local parents talk about having to make a list of which schools they preferred their kids attend. If that's the case it seems like competition already exists.
Practically speaking competition does exist and motivates people hugely in which school they send their kids to but they can only do this indirectly; since in general the school you go to is unequivocally dictated by where you live, they vote with their realtor. It was a prime consideration when we chose our house and it added on tens of thousands of dollars to the cost simply to live in this school zone. Really it's not that the school here is necessarily good, though, it's that we're living more in line with our demographic (middle class as opposed to crack-head class), so our kids won't be going to school with tons of dead beats.
 
Aug 23, 2000
15,509
1
81
OK.

I don't see anything in the article about

America is a land of personal responsibility. It's a land of pulling yourself up by your boot-straps! Why do you hate America?

It specifically states that Obama opposes the program that gives scholarships so people can send their children to private schools so they can get a better education. It also says his kids go to a private school. So put the 2 together and Obama doesn't want your children to have the opportunity to succeed and have a better education because you are poor. But it is ok for his children to not go to the public schools and go to a private school.
Why is it the champion of the poor and oppressed, doesn't embrace the programs and infact wants to end the prorgams that help the oppressed and the poor?
 

daishi5

Golden Member
Feb 17, 2005
1,196
0
76
Are you saying there is no competition with public schools now (serious question - I don't have kids)? I've heard local parents talk about having to make a list of which schools they preferred their kids attend. If that's the case it seems like competition already exists.

That would be dependent on the area, I know here parents don't have a choice regarding which school they attend. If you remember the video someone posted a while back regarding the rapidly increasing cost of living in America, she stated that most of the cost of housing is explained by schools. I think a 1% increase in schools equated to $2,000 dollars in home prices. I know that the really good high school in this area, is also the area with the really high home prices, and coworkers are willing to get a smaller house at the same price to get in the area.
 

drbrock

Golden Member
Feb 8, 2008
1,333
8
81
there is a school I heard about from Dateline in Washington DC that is a competitive school for the teachers. I think they went on to mention that the school is in a doo rag area of DC and the teachers compete to get the bonuses and higher pay that the school offers. I can not remember if it was a voucher or public school, it was an amazing broadcast. You seen minority parents seriously competing to get into the school. kids were behaved and well dressed.

The problem is that kids and poor people feel like education is a right that can not be taken away regardless of the behavior of the child or parent.

Also another issue not related to the thread is a high school education sucks, what is the point of completing it if you are not going to college. college is not for everyone, white or minority. They should have real skills taught in high school like trades. Maybe electrical,carpentry, or auto mechanics. I am sure local companies would love free or very cheap labor for apprenticeships. At least give these kids some skills in high school. I feel bad that for these kids that have no hope after high school. Have two different tracks college bound or tradesman bound.

Just my 2 cents
 

CallMeJoe

Diamond Member
Jul 30, 2004
6,938
5
81
...Also another issue not related to the thread is a high school education sucks, what is the point of completing it if you are not going to college. college is not for everyone, white or minority. They should have real skills taught in high school like trades. Maybe electrical,carpentry, or auto mechanics. I am sure local companies would love free or very cheap labor for apprenticeships. At least give these kids some skills in high school. I feel bad that for these kids that have no hope after high school. Have two different tracks college bound or tradesman bound...
IIRC, I first posted the following in P & N about 4 years ago:

"No child held behind"
Much has recently been made of the importance of improving education in the United States, with proposals ranging from President Bush's "no child left behind" initiative, to school voucher programs and "parental choice" options. Lawsuits have been filed across the nation concerning inequities in funding between school districts within a state, leading to complex systems to redistribute funds, even as there is decreasing evidence that throwing more money into failing systems will make any difference. Students are endlessly tested and evaluated. Teachers and schools are graded and regulated. The situation has gotten to the point that very few citizens even question the federalization of what have traditionally been local or at most state decisions on schools.
I dare to propose that the underlying problem has little to do with money, and that no number of new federal mandates or new testing or new teacher requirements will make any difference in our childrens' learning. I propose that we need radically to change the underlying philosophy of education in the United States. We must recognise that we do not live in an educational Lake Wobegone, and that, despite parents' beliefs, not all children are "above average". We must recognise that to allow the average and above average students to progress, some children must be left behind. We must abandon a false egalitarianism so that all students may progress to the best of their abilities, though not all to the current supposed "grade level".

My Proposal:
All students start with equal opportunity. Kindergarten and early elementary education would change little. Things would start to shake around elementary grade 3 with a gradual stratification of performance levels, dividing students initially into 3 levels based on academic performance. Higher achieving students - average students - underachieving students. Each term there would be opportunity for promotion/demotion between levels. As grades progress, there would be a further division into as many as 5 levels. Each group would advance at its own pace, with slower students no longer holding back the average and faster students able to push on ahead. Again, opportunity for movement between levels as students show either ability to move up or need to move down. Around grade 9 (3d year secondary) there would be a transition to vocational/technical training emphasis for lower levels as upper levels are moved into college preparatory. This system allows our best students to progress at a pace far beyond what they are now permitted. It allows our average students still to receive a quality education. It lets even the slowest students progress at a pace beyond what they can today, since they would be instructed at a level they can maintain, rather than being forced to try to keep up with a class average beyond their abilities.
The obvious weakness I see in this proposal is the unwillingness of parents to admit that their precious little one might actually be below average in ability or application. Anyone who has seen Mommy and Daddy screaming at a teacher who dared give little Johnny or Janie the failing grade they deserved for not doing assigned work will know whereof I speak. Nonetheless, I sincerely think this proposal gives all students an opportunity to learn at their own highest level.

Does anyone reading this missive think our brave politicians would ever vote this proposal?
 

StageLeft

No Lifer
Sep 29, 2000
70,150
5
0
You seen minority parents seriously competing to get into the school. kids were behaved and well dressed.
Time to point something out. The problem is many of these schools with deadbeat kids have deadbeat parents who do not give a sh*t.

Earlier I said I pay more for my house just for its school. It's not because the teachers are better, it's because the kids and their parents are.

Tiering kids early on can work. It wouldn't have for me; I'd probably be cleaning toilets now but I got so many chances and finally took one. In general it has benefits, though. However, this approach would end up with the "less talented" kids disproportionately minority, so as mentioned politically it would never fly.

Just an anecdote, but check it out:

http://www.baynews9.com/content/36/2010/2/11/582040.html

Earlier today the plan was that they would pay. If your child is in school do you REALLY need motivation to answer a survey on how that school is doing? You really give that little of a sh*t?
 

drbrock

Golden Member
Feb 8, 2008
1,333
8
81
IIRC, I first posted the following in P & N about 4 years ago:

"No child held behind"


Does anyone reading this missive think our brave politicians would ever vote this proposal?

makes complete sense. I hate when parents think that their kids deserve a trophy for everything. Face it if the kid is mediocre he is mediocre. High school baseball teams are not going to take average players they take the best, just like in most situations in real life unless affirmitive action, military placement or other social programs are involved.

However, I agree with another poster that said the kids would be become mostly non minorities in college level classes. Politically this would never happen but I think it would be a great slap to the head for the parents that are borderline decent parents. Sadly I think that people need to be pushed sometimes to get things done.
 

fallout man

Golden Member
Nov 20, 2007
1,787
1
0
IIRC, I first posted the following in P & N about 4 years ago:

"No child held behind"
Much has recently been made of the importance of improving education in the United States, with proposals ranging from President Bush's "no child left behind" initiative, to school voucher programs and "parental choice" options. Lawsuits have been filed across the nation concerning inequities in funding between school districts within a state, leading to complex systems to redistribute funds, even as there is decreasing evidence that throwing more money into failing systems will make any difference. Students are endlessly tested and evaluated. Teachers and schools are graded and regulated. The situation has gotten to the point that very few citizens even question the federalization of what have traditionally been local or at most state decisions on schools.
I dare to propose that the underlying problem has little to do with money, and that no number of new federal mandates or new testing or new teacher requirements will make any difference in our childrens' learning. I propose that we need radically to change the underlying philosophy of education in the United States. We must recognise that we do not live in an educational Lake Wobegone, and that, despite parents' beliefs, not all children are "above average". We must recognise that to allow the average and above average students to progress, some children must be left behind. We must abandon a false egalitarianism so that all students may progress to the best of their abilities, though not all to the current supposed "grade level".

My Proposal:
All students start with equal opportunity. Kindergarten and early elementary education would change little. Things would start to shake around elementary grade 3 with a gradual stratification of performance levels, dividing students initially into 3 levels based on academic performance. Higher achieving students - average students - underachieving students. Each term there would be opportunity for promotion/demotion between levels. As grades progress, there would be a further division into as many as 5 levels. Each group would advance at its own pace, with slower students no longer holding back the average and faster students able to push on ahead. Again, opportunity for movement between levels as students show either ability to move up or need to move down. Around grade 9 (3d year secondary) there would be a transition to vocational/technical training emphasis for lower levels as upper levels are moved into college preparatory. This system allows our best students to progress at a pace far beyond what they are now permitted. It allows our average students still to receive a quality education. It lets even the slowest students progress at a pace beyond what they can today, since they would be instructed at a level they can maintain, rather than being forced to try to keep up with a class average beyond their abilities.
The obvious weakness I see in this proposal is the unwillingness of parents to admit that their precious little one might actually be below average in ability or application. Anyone who has seen Mommy and Daddy screaming at a teacher who dared give little Johnny or Janie the failing grade they deserved for not doing assigned work will know whereof I speak. Nonetheless, I sincerely think this proposal gives all students an opportunity to learn at their own highest level.

Does anyone reading this missive think our brave politicians would ever vote this proposal?

makes complete sense. I hate when parents think that their kids deserve a trophy for everything. Face it if the kid is mediocre he is mediocre. High school baseball teams are not going to take average players they take the best, just like in most situations in real life unless affirmitive action, military placement or other social programs are involved.

However, I agree with another poster that said the kids would be become mostly non minorities in college level classes. Politically this would never happen but I think it would be a great slap to the head for the parents that are borderline decent parents. Sadly I think that people need to be pushed sometimes to get things done.

I was bored to fucking tears in HS science classes, even the AP ones. What CmJ suggests is, in my opinion, the best way to squeeze the most talent out of the kids and channel it properly for the benefit of our nation as a whole. However, you have to consider the strain this proposal would put on the faculty and school funding/resources.

Schools are already struggling, and it seems to me as if in the public school system, the "special needs" crowd has more resources allocated to them per student than the really bright kids could ever hope for. Don't get me wrong--I agree that funding should be put into special programs to deal with kids who need extra help. I would like every person that graduates HS in this country to meet at least a basic level of competency.

On the other hand, I'm also finding myself wondering how we can justify spending so much effort and resources trying to lift up the retarded and lazy (I'm going to hell) while the bright and motivated students are left to lick clean the spoon in terms of hiring qualified, inspiring teachers and providing resources for the HS science and technology curriculum they deserve to advance and be competitive nationally and internationally.

Many countries push students out of HS after a curriculum that is equivalent to college undergraduate intro math, biology, chemistry and physics in the States. I think that less fruity "health class" full of obvious and less "home-economics" full of shit you should have figured out by now and more "let me pound your face into this math/physics/chemistry/biology book" is the direction to go.

Edit: Coming from my perspective, I neglected to mention that talent isn't limited to math and science. I think that a similar approach should be taken with students who excel in languages, writing, and social sciences. They deserve a curriculum beyond what AP classes have to offer, and they deserve awesome teachers who need to be paid well for their effort. As with any of these suggestions, we run into a problem of costs--and that sucks.
 
Last edited:

DucatiMonster696

Diamond Member
Aug 13, 2009
4,269
1
71
This is hilarious that people are trying to pin assertions of racism when talking about charter schools. Of note it is especially ironic when its minority parents seeking out charter schools which cater to their own race.

Then you take into account the lack of standards and complacent nature of liberal dominated and run public schools (especially inner city schools) which have turned into baby sitting services for future criminals and their crappy parents.

Also it interesting how some school districts (regarding the SF Bay Area and especially SF city itself) restrict or prevent over achieving groups (especially Asians and Whites) kids from attending schools near their homes because they need these over achieving kids to balance out failing test scores in their failed inner city schools. Then these same over achieving kids end up suffering by going to a school where they are treated like trash and in many cases victimized by the "oppressed minority classes" because they do well in school. Yet apparently racism is only a one way street for those who love to cry racism when they don't get their way in life or someone does better then them because of their work ethic or their political views are revoked by reality.
 

cKGunslinger

Lifer
Nov 29, 1999
16,408
57
91
Anecdote:

The small town where I grew up (in Louisiana) created a Charter school a few years ago. It has one black student, from last I heard. The public school now has 0 white students. Zero. It is 100% African American (with a few non-white Hispanics.)

It's not all racism, I'm pretty sure - but a not-insignificant portion of it is.
 

Rainsford

Lifer
Apr 25, 2001
17,515
0
0
Anecdote:

The small town where I grew up (in Louisiana) created a Charter school a few years ago. It has one black student, from last I heard. The public school now has 0 white students. Zero. It is 100% African American (with a few non-white Hispanics.)

It's not all racism, I'm pretty sure - but a not-insignificant portion of it is.

Indeed.

Of course there are social and economic reasons for "white flight", but that doesn't mean that racism can't also play a part.

I'm not sure this particular case in Arizona is the best example (since there are plenty of non-white folks at the schools), but the OP sure as hell is. Casually referring to the black students at public schools as "worthless fuckwit gangbangers" seems about as obvious as stamping "racist" on your forehead.
 

piasabird

Lifer
Feb 6, 2002
17,168
60
91
It is odd to say that White People make more money on average. Maybe it is just because white people tend to have more stable marriage relationships. It is easier to survivie if you have 2 wage earners.