Why isn't education spending national or statewide rather than local?

[LeeTJ]

Originally posted by: Thera

Originally posted by: notfred

Originally posted by: ggavinmoss
True. There will always be poor people. But there shouldn't be a perpetual poor. Through hard work and sacrafice, the poor should have a chance of changing their socioeconomic standing.

-geoff

They have that now, but most of them lack the ability or desire to try.

It honestly doesn't matter with regard to the education argument. We can talk until we're blue in the face about poor people and why they're poor. But what we need to do is reflect the facts about poverty back onto the education discussion.

Let's say that one isn't perpetually poor, let's say they're poor for 5 years. Should this then effect there education level during that 5 year span?

I stand by my case that education ultimately should be seperate from economic status. I don't know how one would do it but it's the way it should be. Education, in my opinion is much more valuable (socially) than wealth.

This is soo naive. How do you keep education equal?? 40% or more of education should take place IN THE HOME. Wealthier families will have children that have more exposure to sources of knowledge and information, either the parents will directly get involved with their childrens education or they will hire someone to do it for them. Poor families will by and large put less effort into educating their children at home. Are schools supposed to make up the difference for the kids of poor families?? how do you keep things equal?? equal funding does not result in equal levels of education. children from wealthier homes will have a head start, beginning from preschool on. how are public schools supposed to adjust for this??

 

[43st]

Originally posted by: LeeTJ

Originally posted by: Thera

Originally posted by: notfred

Originally posted by: ggavinmoss
True. There will always be poor people. But there shouldn't be a perpetual poor. Through hard work and sacrafice, the poor should have a chance of changing their socioeconomic standing.

-geoff

They have that now, but most of them lack the ability or desire to try.

It honestly doesn't matter with regard to the education argument. We can talk until we're blue in the face about poor people and why they're poor. But what we need to do is reflect the facts about poverty back onto the education discussion.

Let's say that one isn't perpetually poor, let's say they're poor for 5 years. Should this then effect there education level during that 5 year span?

I stand by my case that education ultimately should be seperate from economic status. I don't know how one would do it but it's the way it should be. Education, in my opinion is much more valuable (socially) than wealth.

This is soo naive. How do you keep education equal?? 40% or more of education should take place IN THE HOME. Wealthier families will have children that have more exposure to sources of knowledge and information, either the parents will directly get involved with their childrens education or they will hire someone to do it for them. Poor families will by and large put less effort into educating their children at home. Are schools supposed to make up the difference for the kids of poor families?? how do you keep things equal?? equal funding does not result in equal levels of education. children from wealthier homes will have a head start, beginning from preschool on. how are public schools supposed to adjust for this??

Here in the burbs of NYC we have many rich families and I'd honestly say that the wealthy kids are not as "smart" as the middle class folks. They don't understand the worth of a dollar, they don't understand that you can't always get what you want, they don't understand a lot of things about how the real world operates. These kids have parents that are "professionals" they spend 16 hours a day at the office and hire a nanny to care for there kids. They're not not getting an education from home, that's for sure.

I live in Westchester county, just North of NYC. I live in a neighborhood where the average house starts at $2.5 million. The kids, more or less, from these "affluent" homes are pretty messed up socially. One of the salesmen at my office has a family like I just stated and he sits around wondering "why is my kid messed up"? Hmmmm... let's list the ways...

I know my idea is naive. I was simply trying to dispell the idea that poor people deserve less education than wealthy people.

 

[43st]

I don't understand your argument's relation to funding.

Neither do I. I was fighting against the "they're poor, they deserve it" argument. I have no idea how to fix the problem, I'm simply acknowledging that it is a problem at this point.

I like discussing it but I don't pretend to have any solutions.

 

[LeeTJ]

Originally posted by: Thera

Originally posted by: LeeTJ

Originally posted by: Thera

Originally posted by: notfred

Originally posted by: ggavinmoss
True. There will always be poor people. But there shouldn't be a perpetual poor. Through hard work and sacrafice, the poor should have a chance of changing their socioeconomic standing.

-geoff

They have that now, but most of them lack the ability or desire to try.

It honestly doesn't matter with regard to the education argument. We can talk until we're blue in the face about poor people and why they're poor. But what we need to do is reflect the facts about poverty back onto the education discussion.

Let's say that one isn't perpetually poor, let's say they're poor for 5 years. Should this then effect there education level during that 5 year span?

I stand by my case that education ultimately should be seperate from economic status. I don't know how one would do it but it's the way it should be. Education, in my opinion is much more valuable (socially) than wealth.

This is soo naive. How do you keep education equal?? 40% or more of education should take place IN THE HOME. Wealthier families will have children that have more exposure to sources of knowledge and information, either the parents will directly get involved with their childrens education or they will hire someone to do it for them. Poor families will by and large put less effort into educating their children at home. Are schools supposed to make up the difference for the kids of poor families?? how do you keep things equal?? equal funding does not result in equal levels of education. children from wealthier homes will have a head start, beginning from preschool on. how are public schools supposed to adjust for this??

Here in the burbs of NYC we have many rich families and I'd honestly say that the wealthy kids are not as "smart" as the middle class folks. They don't understand the worth of a dollar, they don't understand that you can't always get what you want, they don't understand a lot of things about how the real world operates. These kids have parents that are "professionals" they spend 16 hours a day at the office and hire a nanny to care for there kids. They're not not getting an education from home, that's for sure.

I live in Westchester county, just North of NYC. I live in a neighborhood where the average house starts at $2.5 million. The kids, more or less, from these "affluent" homes are pretty messed up socially. One of the salesmen at my office has a family like I just stated and he sits around wondering "why is my kid messed up"? Hmmmm... let's list the ways...

I know my idea is naive. I was simply trying to dispell the idea that poor people deserve less education than wealthy people.

You like pointing out the IRRELEVANT don't you.

Your eg. are just that, eg. based on few samples. look at the overall picture, Kids from well off homes do better than kids from poor homes. that's a general statistic.

Also your idea what is intelligence is again IRRELEVANT to the topic at hand because we are talking SCHOOL EDUCATION not REAL WORLD EDUCATION.

TO stay on the point, You can't just say EQUAL EDUCATION w/o defining what that equality is. Bottom line, the way things are really is the only way to do it. Each community responsible for itself.

 

[IGBT]

When you guys going to start paying tuition?? This free education crap isn't working and the tax payer can't afford ya any more.

 

[LeeTJ]

Originally posted by: IGBT
When you guys going to start paying tuition?? This free education crap isn't working and the tax payer can't afford ya any more.

that has been proposed. I for one would vote for it. all charter schools. no more property taxes you put your money where you want to for education. problem of course is that people that have the money also help fund education for people that don't have money.

 

[43st]

Originally posted by: LeeTJ

Originally posted by: Thera

Originally posted by: LeeTJ

Originally posted by: Thera

Originally posted by: notfred

Originally posted by: ggavinmoss
True. There will always be poor people. But there shouldn't be a perpetual poor. Through hard work and sacrafice, the poor should have a chance of changing their socioeconomic standing.

-geoff

They have that now, but most of them lack the ability or desire to try.

It honestly doesn't matter with regard to the education argument. We can talk until we're blue in the face about poor people and why they're poor. But what we need to do is reflect the facts about poverty back onto the education discussion.

Let's say that one isn't perpetually poor, let's say they're poor for 5 years. Should this then effect there education level during that 5 year span?

I stand by my case that education ultimately should be seperate from economic status. I don't know how one would do it but it's the way it should be. Education, in my opinion is much more valuable (socially) than wealth.

This is soo naive. How do you keep education equal?? 40% or more of education should take place IN THE HOME. Wealthier families will have children that have more exposure to sources of knowledge and information, either the parents will directly get involved with their childrens education or they will hire someone to do it for them. Poor families will by and large put less effort into educating their children at home. Are schools supposed to make up the difference for the kids of poor families?? how do you keep things equal?? equal funding does not result in equal levels of education. children from wealthier homes will have a head start, beginning from preschool on. how are public schools supposed to adjust for this??

Here in the burbs of NYC we have many rich families and I'd honestly say that the wealthy kids are not as "smart" as the middle class folks. They don't understand the worth of a dollar, they don't understand that you can't always get what you want, they don't understand a lot of things about how the real world operates. These kids have parents that are "professionals" they spend 16 hours a day at the office and hire a nanny to care for there kids. They're not not getting an education from home, that's for sure.

I live in Westchester county, just North of NYC. I live in a neighborhood where the average house starts at $2.5 million. The kids, more or less, from these "affluent" homes are pretty messed up socially. One of the salesmen at my office has a family like I just stated and he sits around wondering "why is my kid messed up"? Hmmmm... let's list the ways...

I know my idea is naive. I was simply trying to dispell the idea that poor people deserve less education than wealthy people.

You like pointing out the IRRELEVANT don't you.

Your eg. are just that, eg. based on few samples. look at the overall picture, Kids from well off homes do better than kids from poor homes. that's a general statistic.

Also your idea what is intelligence is again IRRELEVANT to the topic at hand because we are talking SCHOOL EDUCATION not REAL WORLD EDUCATION.

TO stay on the point, You can't just say EQUAL EDUCATION w/o defining what that equality is. Bottom line, the way things are really is the only way to do it. Each community responsible for itself.

I was responding to your post about 40% of education occuring at home. If my responce in irrelevent then your post was also irrelevant.

I do agree that there should be a standard of education defined and I also agree that the community should be involved in that process.

 

[JoeBaD]

The liberal mantra - If you throw enough money at a problem, some of its got to stick.

My wife and I work almost every weeknight with our kids on their school work. My 10 year-old, 4.0 GPA. My 12 year-old 3.9. They got some good teachers. They got some shait teachers. Can't fire the shait teachers cause their contract and union is too strong. But the point is, my wife and I love our kids, want them to suceed, and work with them to achieve it. If those urban parents don't want to do the same, don't tax me to enhance their schools. Fsck em. If they don't want to work their way out of poverty, let them wallow in it.

Make no mistake. The biggest problem with the education system is PARENTS. Followed by the teachers' unions.

I pay my fair share. If some of you think they should get more, write a check. Put YOUR money where your mouth is.

 

[LeeTJ]

Originally posted by: JoeBaD
The liberal mantra - If you throw enough money at a problem, some of its got to stick.

My wife and I work almost every weeknight with our kids on their school work. My 10 year-old, 4.0 GPA. My 12 year-old 3.9. They got some good teachers. They got some shait teachers. Can't fire the shait teachers cause their contract and union is too strong. But the point is, my wife and I love our kids, want them to suceed, and work with them to achieve it. If those urban parents don't want to do the same, don't tax me to enhance their schools. Fsck em. If they don't want to work their way out of poverty, let them wallow in it.

Make no mistake. The biggest problem with the education system is PARENTS. Followed by the teachers' unions.

I pay my fair share. If some of you think they should get more, write a check. Put YOUR money where your mouth is.

EXACTLY, more precisely, if you do the numbers you'll find that single parent families have kids with the worst performance in school. and PULEASE don't post your own experience of the one or two people you know that succeeded coming from single paren families. the numbers are there, just google them yourself.

Education is the responsibility of the family, It doesn't take a village to raise a child it only takes 2 good parents.

 

[n0cmonkey]

The Federal government should handle:
International relations
Interstate relations
Interstate commerce

Nothing more that I can think off hand. Education should fall under local authorities (states). If they want to distribute the responsibilities even lower, its up to them.

 

[LeeTJ]

Here's the IRONY of all this.

My wife and i CHOOSE to move back to the US BECAUSE, given the same amount of support and input from us, we felt our children would get a BETTER EDUCATION IN THE US than in Seoul Korea.

We are convinced that the REASON Kids in Japan and Korea do better than Kids in US on standardized exams is not BECAUSE of Educational SYSTEMS but because of PARENTAL INPUT. And that as far as SYSTEMS, our kids would be given MORE opportunities here than There.

 

[JoeBaD]

LeeTJ,

I ain't seen any of our resident "big government spenders" on this board offer to write a check from THEIR account yet.

Whataya say Jello?

 

[LeeTJ]

Originally posted by: JoeBaD
LeeTJ,

I ain't seen any of our resident "big government spenders" on this board offer to write a check from THEIR account yet.

Whataya say Jello?

i'm not sure what the question is?? you want me to pay for your kids education?

 

[JoeBaD]

LeeJT,

the remark was aimed at Jellomancer, not you. Sorry.

 

[nirgis]

First of all I would like to state that I am divorcing the financial from the theoretical, that is, the statement "why should I have to pay for..." is larglely irrelevant. As a citizen, we each have a duty to pay taxes on what the government deems appropriate. Thus, "Why should my taxes pay for poor kids'..." is inconsequential, you are not paying taxes to help a poorer community, you are paying waxes as a citizen to maintain the government to the way it sees fit. I take the assumption that our government seeks to be fair and equitable in its treatment towards its citizens. By extension, what the government deems fair and equitable is what it should do. So, should education subsidization be equal in division or proportional to constiuent contribution? People have used the word community earlier in this thread as a method of catagorizing people. We usually think of the entire country as a macro-community, but actually the state is the division for the government/community. A central value to this government is equality, and above all, equal opportunity to suceed.

A child has no impact on his own upbringing-- it is not just to hold him accountable for his socioeconomic condition until he is mature age, namely 18. Until then he cannot be held for his inability to improve his situation. It is the duty of the government, and by this I mean the state, to guarentee that the minor has equal opportunity to education. One way that this can occur is through equal dividion of taxes towards education spending.

I think that the argument that poorer communities have the ability to improve their own condition is for the most part true but is still irrelevant in this argument. A child should not be punished because of whatever upbringing they have had, because as I have said before they do not have to ability to improve their own condition

 

[LeeTJ]

I think that the argument that poorer communities have the ability to improve their own condition is for the most part true but is still irrelevant in this argument. A child should not be punished because of whatever upbringing they have had, because as I have said before they do not have to ability to improve their own condition

but it's not irrelevant? Society cannot be responsible for what happens inside the home.

the only argument is, how much of an impact does what happen in the home have on education. my premise and belief is that it is significant. the opportunities for education are there the question is, does the home factor allow kids to take advantage of it.

all the government can be responsible for is making sure that the opportunity is there. are some school districts better than others, SURE, but EVERYTHING a student needs in order to be successful in college are provided in ALL school districts.

Forget all that AP stuff, the basics are all thats required to make it in college. Focusing on the fact that some school districts have more AP stuff is just an excuse for the parents of children in poorer school districts BUT is rarely the reason why those students are not successful.