White Students No Longer Majority in Schools

[Rikurzhen]

First of all, almost all state constitutions saddle the states with the responsible to see that uniform if not quality education is available to all students. With the demise of public education, states would have to regulated privates schools to be in accordance with the state constitution and federal constitution. Private schools would not be able to choose their students.

And people will not be able to choose who they wish to marry, their spouse will be assigned to them. That's about as likely to happen as private schools not being able to choose who they wish to admit.

There's no reason for a public school system to disappear - it'll will always survive because it will be the cheapest and easiest alternative and it will be the school of last resort.

They would have to accept the poor, minorities, students with learning disabilities, emotions problems, and criminal backgrounds; in essence, it would eliminate the major advantage that private schools have over public schools.

Parents will never allow this to happen. Look at what happened in Boston - a SUSTAINED protest which lasted 10 years, massive parental sacrifice to finance private education simply to avoid the busing scheme liberals imposed on them. People even died in the protests and that didn't curtail the protests.

Secondly, if private schools are financed with state funds, the schools would have to be accountable to the state as to how those funds are used. That would put government squarely into the classroom which is one major complaints about public schools.

They're not financed with state funds. The state doesn't have any funds. All money comes from people. The vouchers go to each child's parents and the parents use the voucher plus some of their own money to pay the school. The state is not controlling anything here. So because it is the parents who are paying, the school is accountable to the parents.

Your analysis is humorous in that the entire private school and charter school movement is motivated by a desire to lessen the power of the state in calling shots on how a child must be educated and year by year the power of the movement increases. So how you see the ultimate success for this movement? Why that success is measured as the State reimposing control on everything all of a sudden and out of the blue.

What you're doing is called motivated reasoning - you want this outcome so you simply conjure it up. People want to escape the toxic environment created by too many minorities and your solution is that the State will say "Open you mouth and take this tablespoon of Cod Liver Oil because WE know it is good for you."

Parents will not sacrifice the futures of their children in order to make liberals feel good about what they've done to this nation.

 

[Rikurzhen]

You can't do much about the income of the neighborhoods and nothing about the race, but you can do a lot to improve the performance of the schools.

Like what, EXACTLY? Nothing works. This has been a half-century project with massive resources, trillions of dollars, devoted to it, run over numerous experiments, some individual experiments having a blank check, and nothing has worked to improve their performance of poor students.

For decades critics of the public schools have been saying, "You can't solve educational problems by throwing money at them." The education establishment and its supporters have replied, "No one's ever tried." In Kansas City they did try. To improve the education of black students and encourage desegregation, a federal judge invited the Kansas City, Missouri, School District to come up with a cost-is-no-object educational plan and ordered local and state taxpayers to find the money to pay for it.

Kansas City spent as much as $11,700 per pupil--more money per pupil, on a cost of living adjusted basis, than any other of the 280 largest districts in the country. The money bought higher teachers' salaries, 15 new schools, and such amenities as an Olympic-sized swimming pool with an underwater viewing room, television and animation studios, a robotics lab, a 25-acre wildlife sanctuary, a zoo, a model United Nations with simultaneous translation capability, and field trips to Mexico and Senegal. The student-teacher ratio was 12 or 13 to 1, the lowest of any major school district in the country.

The results were dismal. Test scores did not rise; the black-white gap did not diminish; and there was less, not greater, integration.

The Kansas City experiment suggests that, indeed, educational problems can't be solved by throwing money at them, that the structural problems of our current educational system are far more important than a lack of material resources, and that the focus on desegregation diverted attention from the real problem, low achievement.​

What do you KNOW that all the education theorists in the country don't?

We need to find ways of attracting good teachers into bad schools.

You understand that some problems are not solvable, right? This is one of those problems. A good teacher in a bad school has negligible effect on student outcome and the reason that this is so is because it is NOT the teacher who determines student outcome, it's the student.

The second problem here, but probably the more politically touchy one, is the question of what will happen to the black teachers who are displaced by the high quality suburban white teachers who are parachuted in to replace them? This is what will happen. When we see good teachers what we're really seeing is teachers who have good students and that is usually found in middle-upper class schools.

Third is the hot-potato game. If you shift the good teachers to the bad schools, who gets the bad teachers? No way are parents fleeing bad schools going to accept this crazy notion of taking ghetto teachers out of the ghetto and putting those teachers into the classroom with their precious children.

There is no simple solution to our problem in education, however I don't see how abolishing public education would help.

You've been very clear with your scenarios which always point to a return to public education, no matter which path people take to escape it. All roads, by your vision, lead to public education.

You claim that abolishing public education won't help. Help whom? It most certainly will help every single family that is fleeing what liberals have inflicted upon society. It doesn't though help those who people are fleeing from. As I noted earlier public education in this country used to work and it worked quite well before the 1960s. It's not public education that is the problem, it's multiculturalism. Back in the day we had rich and poor kids all going to Midvale High, Archie and Veronica went to the same school. Public school worked. There's no real, drastic problem with the public model, the go-to criticism is the sheer amount of idiotic leftist propaganda that is firehosed at students but that's easy to change if there is a concerted effort to purge liberals out of public schools in order to save public education. The more fundamental problem is the low performance and social dysfunction that is related to minority presence in schools. The only solution to that is voluntary self-segregation - to flee from the dysfunctional minorities.

All the countries that are ahead of us in student performance rely primarily on public schools. In fact some of the countries have almost no private schools.

Talk about misreading the data. They're NOT doing well because of public schooling, they're doing well because they have few minority students. The only Asian "entity" which has students with higher performance than seen from Asian-American students is the city of Shanghai. Asian-American students outperform the students of all Asian nations. The only white nation with higher performance than white-Americans is Finland. American white students outperform Canadian students and the students of all European nations.

If America of today had the same population demographics as we did in 1960, we'd be right near the top of the international rankings (but still dealing with the drag created by our African-American student population.)

 

[Flopper]

They're not financed with state funds. The state doesn't have any funds. All money comes from people. The vouchers go to each child's parents and the parents use the voucher plus some of their own money to pay the school. The state is not controlling anything here. So because it is the parents who are paying, the school is accountable to the parents.

That bird won't fly. The voucher goes to parent, the parent endorses it, and the state pays the school. Even if the state issue a check to the parent requiring it be used for private school tuition, it still won't fly. No matter how you cut it, the state would be using tax payer money to fund private schools that are 75% parochial. That would be a show stopper.

Your analysis is humorous in that the entire private school and charter school movement is motivated by a desire to lessen the power of the state in calling shots on how a child must be educated and year by year the power of the movement increases.

I'm not saying the desire to lessen the power of the state over education is the only or even the primary motivation. However, nearly ever argument you read supporting vouchers lays the responsibility for the problems in educations with the government. The obvious conclusion is to take government out of the equation.

Speaking of motivation, the major support for vouchers comes from middle income parents seeking help in paying private school tuition. There seems to be some misconception as to how vouchers might help. What legislatures such as in Indiana, Louisiana and other states are proposing is providing only a relatively small part of the cost of a public school education for vouchers. The amount a family would receive would be determine by income level. For example in Indiana the proposal in the legislation would allocate only a maximum of $5200 to a family, not to a child. Above the poverty level, there would almost nothing available. What this does is make it easier for poor minorities to attend private school which is bad news for parents sending their kids to private school.

 

[Stephanie]

White Students No Longer Majority in Schools

For the first time ever, U.S. public schools are projected this fall to have more minority students than non-Hispanic whites enrolled, a shift largely fueled by growth in the number of Hispanic children.

Non-Hispanic white students are still expected to be the largest racial group in the public schools this year at 49.8 percent. But the National Center for Education Statistics says minority students, when added together, will now make up the majority.

About one-quarter of the minority students are Hispanic, 15 percent are black and 5 percent are Asian and Pacific Islanders. Biracial students and Native Americans make up a smaller share of the minority student population.

Education Secretary Arne Duncan called the changing population a seminal moment in education. "We can't talk about other people's children. These are our children," he said.

Read Latest Breaking News from Newsmax.com White Students No Longer Majority in Schools

This sucks. The report a few years ago said that we had 5 years before children under 18 becomes majority non-white clearly is wrong. Wrong because children pre-public school are even higher non-white percentages. Get ready for the shit to hit fan.

Times have changed. Conservative need to realize that the days of the all white public schools are gone and will never return. One of the reasons whites are no longer the majority in public schools is due to whites flocking to private schools to avoid minorities. However, looking at the bigger picture, the shift reflect the changing demographics of the nation.

really, to avoid minorities? and only conservatives huh?
I guess that's why Obama, the Clintons, Bush and half of Congress (Democrat/Repbulican) sends their kid to Private schools huh?
you don't know why people do anything so stop with the lies and projecting

 

[Stephanie]

I heard someone mention on another site that more people are HOME schooling these days too

so their gauging of something like this might be off

But after I worked in the schools for some years, my suggestion is home school...Schools are becoming indoctrinating socialist/commie camps

edited for article:
SNIP:

Readin', Writin' and Social Justice Agitatin'



August 8, 2014 - 4:24 AM
By Michelle Malkin



It's back-to-school season across the country. But in an increasing number of districts, "back to school" doesn't mean back to learning. Under the reign of social justice indoctrinators, academics are secondary to political agitation. Activism trumps achievement.

In Massachusetts, the John J. Duggan Middle School will open on August 25 with a new name and mission. It is now a "social justice magnet school." As a hiring advertisement for teachers explained earlier this year, the emphasis will be on "helping students develop the necessary skills to analyze and synthesize information and to generate empathy by looking at multiple sides of important issues facing the world, be that hunger, water quality, racial barriers, child labor or imbalance of power."

Concise writing, as you can see, is not on the social justice pedagogues' agenda.

Oh, and forget about memorizing times tables or mastering the scientific method. The new principal says the school's primary job is teaching "fairness." Duggan Middle School's junior lobbying factory is "serious about creating 21st century global citizens, and it begins with understanding who we are as members of each of those communities."

The ultimate goal of these social justice prep schools: creating left-wing political advocates.

At the Crescent Heights Social Justice Magnet School in Los Angeles, children will work on "action projects" tied to the "United Nations Millennium Development Goals." Students will spend the academic year transforming into "agents of change." Yes, they will learn language arts. But basic reading and writing are only a focus of the magnet school, the founders explain, because "we want our students to recognize injustice in their world or the world at large and be able to fully express their outrage, their plan of attack, their progress in this endeavor."

In Chicago, Ground Zero for social justice brainwashing, the Social Justice High School (SOJO), follows a similar mission. Activist teachers openly foster identity politics and systematically undermine individualism. Their specialties: "struggle and sacrifice." SOJO's mission statement sounds like a pot-addled Oberlin College freshman's — er, freshperson's — Sociology 101 term paper:

"Through collective community power, we commit to a conscious effort to overcome the intended historical obstacles that have been designed to disempower and divide our communities."

all of the article here:
http://cnsnews.com/commentary/michelle-malkin/readin-writin-and-social-justice-agitatin

 

[Rikurzhen]

That bird won't fly. The voucher goes to parent, the parent endorses it, and the state pays the school.

I think I wasn't clear enough in my point. I find it funny the way you conceptualize this issue as the State giving parents money. The State doesn't have money. People have money. The State takes money from people and gives it to schools. In the case of vouchers, the State takes money from people and gives it to parents. There is no GIFT to parents. What parents pay in taxes dedicated to school fees over their lifespan usually ends up balancing the cost of educating their children, so it's a wash - there is no FREE money - all the State does is it concentrates the benefits to parent in the years that their children are going to school and then keeps collecting taxes when the children are done with school in order to close off the imbalance.

People earn money. People have money. The state doesn't go out and actually CREATE wealth like people do, it simply extorts money from people. That's my point.

Even if the state issue a check to the parent requiring it be used for private school tuition, it still won't fly. No matter how you cut it, the state would be using tax payer money to fund private schools that are 75% parochial. That would be a show stopper.

For people like you who want to coerce your vision onto others and use this as the argument, the response is simple - do away with centralized public education financing. Instead move to a school tax version of the privatized social security system. Everyone gets taxed for public schooling but they keep that tax in their own accounts, not just for the years their kids are in school but every single year they own a home. You can borrow against the revenue stream that you're going to pay every year and use that to pay for your kid's education. See, now there is no "government funding" of parochial schools.

Secondly, even without going that route, the non-parochial schools avoid this issue. Understand that parents are sending their kids to private schools for two principal reasons - to control the demographics of the classroom/school and to escape the leftist nuttery that is being jammed into public schools. These are both "push" mechanisms in play. If the public schools weren't bogged down with these issues then there would be no "push" factor in play pushing the kids out of the public schools. Religious instruction is a "pull" mechanism, a feature that can't be found in public schools and a feature that some parents desire and so this motivates their choice.

The push factors far outweigh the pull factors in the exodus movement from public schools and will continue to do so as the rise of minority students and associated dysfunctions continue to increase. People will look to escape. They'll be pushed out.

I'm not saying the desire to lessen the power of the state over education is the only or even the primary motivation. However, nearly ever argument you read supporting vouchers lays the responsibility for the problems in educations with the government. The obvious conclusion is to take government out of the equation.

Look, there are Private Truths and Public Lies. People understand that they can't articulate what is of concern to them so they articulate something that is permissible. There were plenty of rock-ribbed conservatives back in the 1950s who didn't really see government running schools as a huge problem. The vast majority of the public thought American public schools were fabulous. Then liberals fucked it up.

The problems are leftist cultural engineering in the curriculum and the rise of minority populations which tend to bring dysfunction, or in the case of heavy Asian proportion, a grind culture to the schools. In all cases we see white flight away from something that is not appreciated.

Speaking of motivation, the major support for vouchers comes from middle income parents seeking help in paying private school tuition.

And what, precisely, is so untoward about that? These people are paying school taxes for a service that they reject as being appropriate for their children.

There seems to be some misconception as to how vouchers might help. What legislatures such as in Indiana, Louisiana and other states are proposing is providing only a relatively small part of the cost of a public school education for vouchers. The amount a family would receive would be determine by income level. For example in Indiana the proposal in the legislation would allocate only a maximum of $5200 to a family, not to a child. Above the poverty level, there would almost nothing available. What this does is make it easier for poor minorities to attend private school which is bad news for parents sending their kids to private school.

You do realize that you've simply shown a snapshot in time. This remedy being proposed will not stand from now until forever. The dynamics in play are really very simple to understand. As people flee a system they have less interest in supporting a system. These legislators are not looking out for the interests of the people who are fleeing, rather they're looking out for the interest of the existing school system and the disadvantaged. As more people flee, these legislators will be seen as actively working against their interests and will be voted out. This is a dynamic process, it's responsive.

These legislators are trying to keep the system together in the face of growing public disillusionment with the system. Their tactic is to force people to pay for the system and thereby, in order to avoid having to pay twice, hoping that the parents will sacrifice their children in order to save money. Some parents will, by fiscal necessity, have to sacrifice their children's education but the margin will move ever inward as each successive child escapes the system. Those who remain will be faced with growing levels of dysfunction surrounding them, this in turn motivates the parents on the new margin to pull their kids no matter the fiscal hardship this entails and the margin slips ever inward.

This is what happens when liberals screw up society - society reacts and the liberal scheme scatters wreckage across the land. Liberals have screwed over what was once a fine public education system. Once Humpty Dumpty falls you can't put him back together again.

 

[Flopper]

You understand that some problems are not solvable, right? This is one of those problems. A good teacher in a bad school has negligible effect on student outcome and the reason that this is so is because it is NOT the teacher who determines student outcome, it's the student.

That's ridiculous. Good teachers make all the difference in world, particular in high risk schools. I taught in a Chapter I school in Florida for two years. I saw good teachers making a huge difference. I also saw deadheads that were there because no one else wanted them. The kids in their classes would have been better off it the district put a security guard in the classroom and sent the teacher home.

Although nobody in their right mind goes into to teaching to get rich, everyone wants to be rewarded for doing a difficult job. We should pay teachers in bad schools well above other schools. We should stop the process of transferring some our worst teachers into the worst schools. In my class the proper class size should have been about 10 to 12 students. I had 26 one year and about 22 the other year. Lastly we need to shit can the idea of using a universal curriculum in these schools. Teaching fractions and ratios to kids that haven't master the multiplication tables is beyond stupid.

 

[Carlsen]

White Students No Longer Majority in Schools

For the first time ever, U.S. public schools are projected this fall to have more minority students than non-Hispanic whites enrolled, a shift largely fueled by growth in the number of Hispanic children.

Non-Hispanic white students are still expected to be the largest racial group in the public schools this year at 49.8 percent. But the National Center for Education Statistics says minority students, when added together, will now make up the majority.

About one-quarter of the minority students are Hispanic, 15 percent are black and 5 percent are Asian and Pacific Islanders. Biracial students and Native Americans make up a smaller share of the minority student population.

Education Secretary Arne Duncan called the changing population a seminal moment in education. "We can't talk about other people's children. These are our children," he said.

Read Latest Breaking News from Newsmax.com

This sucks. The report a few years ago said that we had 5 years before children under 18 becomes majority non-white clearly is wrong. Wrong because children pre-public school are even higher non-white percentages. Get ready for the shit to hit fan.

M y school have White Hispanic majority. Each year the school it take a census of White Hispanic, White English, African American, Asian


.

 

[Rikurzhen]

That's ridiculous. Good teachers make all the difference in world, particular in high risk schools. I taught in a Chapter I school in Florida for two years. I saw good teachers making a huge difference. I also saw deadheads that were there because no one else wanted them. The kids in their classes would have been better off it the district put a security guard in the classroom and sent the teacher home.

Making a huge difference as measured against which metric? More engaged students? Sure, that's entirely plausible - a good teacher will engage the students, keep them attentive, the students will follow along, etc.

There's a problem though:

In 2007, using funds from the federal Teacher Incentive Fund (TIF) and private foundations, the Chicago Public Schools (CPS) began piloting its version of a schoolwide reform model called the Teacher Advancement Program (TAP). Under the TAP model, teachers can earn extra pay and take on increased responsibilities through promotion (to mentor teacher or master teacher), and they become eligible for annual performance bonuses based on a combination of their contribution to student achievement (known as “value added”) and observed performance in the classroom. The model calls for weekly meetings of teachers and mentors (“cluster groups”), and regular classroom observations by a school leadership team to help teachers meet their performance goals. The idea behind TAP is that giving teachers performance incentives , along with tools to track their performance and improve instruction, will help schools attract and retain talented teachers and help all teachers raise student achievement. . . .

While the introduction of Chicago TAP led to real changes inside the schools, the program did not consistently raise student achievement as measured by growth in Illinois Standards Achievement Test (ISAT) scores.​

And another thing, from Vanderbilt University:

Rewarding teachers with bonus pay, in the absence of any other support programs, does not raise student test scores, according to a new study issued today by the National Center on Performance Incentives at Vanderbilt University’s Peabody College of education and human development in partnership with the RAND Corporation.​

Again, no one is going to argue that it's not preferable to have a good teacher instead of a bad teacher, if for nothing else than the ability of the good teacher to keep the students engaged in one fashion or another even if this doesn't result in increased student outcomes.

What you leave unmentioned, like a fart in an elevator, is what you intend to do with the legions of bad teachers who are replaced by the good teachers? Are you prepared to fire 30% of America's teachers, just drive them right out of the profession? And where will all these new "good teachers" come from? The current teacher training infrastructure doesn't seem to actually produce good teachers, so are you prepared to board up the Colleges of Education and do something different or are you prepared to institute a mass purge of Professors of Education and replace them with ???

Although nobody in their right mind goes into to teaching to get rich, everyone wants to be rewarded for doing a difficult job. We should pay teachers in bad schools well above other schools. We should stop the process of transferring some our worst teachers into the worst schools.

Who, as a group. cares more about the education of their children, the lower class or the upper class? Those who care the most will devote more resources to bringing the best that can be brought to stand in front of their children. Your notion of sending the bad teachers to teach at the best schools is simply not going to work. The best schools have the resources to reward the best teachers.

That said, New Jersey did what you suggested with their Abbott School systems. Under court order the poor, dysfunctional Abbott systems got boatloads of state money to supplement local funding, resulting in Abbott systems getting more funding than schools in Princeton and other wealthy districts. They had the ability to use this money to pay teachers more, hire better teachers, etc and at the end of the day nothing improved in terms of student outcomes.

Lastly we need to shit can the idea of using a universal curriculum in these schools. Teaching fractions and ratios to kids that haven't master the multiplication tables is beyond stupid.

The basic school curricula is designed so that an 85 IQ kid can understand it. The problem is that some kids have a very low learning rate. It's not that they can't get the material, it's that they can't get the material in the allotted instructional time. What's actually been demonstrated to work is more instructional time. The experimental schools which run 2 additional hours per weekday, run 1/2 days on Saturday and run one additional month per school year manage to teach their students to proficient levels just as regular schools do in a traditional school year.

 

[Avorysuds]

Getting worried about not having the majority? Tough shyt...

It's odd to me how openly racist you are.

There has been much Government focus on getting minorities into college while trying to make it harder for whites and white males especially to get into college. There is no quota to fill for white males, there are for other nationalities and females.

I honestly don't care as college is a scam, what we will see in years to come is less whites as a % of whites in debt and unable to pay that debt while minorities who have been pushed so heavily to go to college will be bogged down by debt. In a way it's quite amazing, Dems found a way to impoverish minorities and keep them there like no other political machine in world history.

Good luck finding a job that pays well enough to cover that useless degree you got =D

For the record, what makes you racist it that you don't care that by % whites should be the majority in school. You are happy there are all black grants, but you would nuke a bitch if you found an all white grant out there for people.

 

[Flopper]

That's ridiculous. Good teachers make all the difference in world, particular in high risk schools. I taught in a Chapter I school in Florida for two years. I saw good teachers making a huge difference. I also saw deadheads that were there because no one else wanted them. The kids in their classes would have been better off it the district put a security guard in the classroom and sent the teacher home.

Making a huge difference as measured against which metric? More engaged students? Sure, that's entirely plausible - a good teacher will engage the students, keep them attentive, the students will follow along, etc.

There's a problem though:

In 2007, using funds from the federal Teacher Incentive Fund (TIF) and private foundations, the Chicago Public Schools (CPS) began piloting its version of a schoolwide reform model called the Teacher Advancement Program (TAP). Under the TAP model, teachers can earn extra pay and take on increased responsibilities through promotion (to mentor teacher or master teacher), and they become eligible for annual performance bonuses based on a combination of their contribution to student achievement (known as “value added”) and observed performance in the classroom. The model calls for weekly meetings of teachers and mentors (“cluster groups”), and regular classroom observations by a school leadership team to help teachers meet their performance goals. The idea behind TAP is that giving teachers performance incentives , along with tools to track their performance and improve instruction, will help schools attract and retain talented teachers and help all teachers raise student achievement. . . .

While the introduction of Chicago TAP led to real changes inside the schools, the program did not consistently raise student achievement as measured by growth in Illinois Standards Achievement Test (ISAT) scores.​

And another thing, from Vanderbilt University:

Rewarding teachers with bonus pay, in the absence of any other support programs, does not raise student test scores, according to a new study issued today by the National Center on Performance Incentives at Vanderbilt University’s Peabody College of education and human development in partnership with the RAND Corporation.​

Again, no one is going to argue that it's not preferable to have a good teacher instead of a bad teacher, if for nothing else than the ability of the good teacher to keep the students engaged in one fashion or another even if this doesn't result in increased student outcomes.

What you leave unmentioned, like a fart in an elevator, is what you intend to do with the legions of bad teachers who are replaced by the good teachers? Are you prepared to fire 30% of America's teachers, just drive them right out of the profession? And where will all these new "good teachers" come from? The current teacher training infrastructure doesn't seem to actually produce good teachers, so are you prepared to board up the Colleges of Education and do something different or are you prepared to institute a mass purge of Professors of Education and replace them with ???

Although nobody in their right mind goes into to teaching to get rich, everyone wants to be rewarded for doing a difficult job. We should pay teachers in bad schools well above other schools. We should stop the process of transferring some our worst teachers into the worst schools.

Who, as a group. cares more about the education of their children, the lower class or the upper class? Those who care the most will devote more resources to bringing the best that can be brought to stand in front of their children. Your notion of sending the bad teachers to teach at the best schools is simply not going to work. The best schools have the resources to reward the best teachers.

That said, New Jersey did what you suggested with their Abbott School systems. Under court order the poor, dysfunctional Abbott systems got boatloads of state money to supplement local funding, resulting in Abbott systems getting more funding than schools in Princeton and other wealthy districts. They had the ability to use this money to pay teachers more, hire better teachers, etc and at the end of the day nothing improved in terms of student outcomes.

Lastly we need to shit can the idea of using a universal curriculum in these schools. Teaching fractions and ratios to kids that haven't master the multiplication tables is beyond stupid.

The basic school curricula is designed so that an 85 IQ kid can understand it. The problem is that some kids have a very low learning rate. It's not that they can't get the material, it's that they can't get the material in the allotted instructional time. What's actually been demonstrated to work is more instructional time. The experimental schools which run 2 additional hours per weekday, run 1/2 days on Saturday and run one additional month per school year manage to teach their students to proficient levels just as regular schools do in a traditional school year.

Oh, yes, experimental schools. Look at the real world. Keeping elementary students in at risk schools an extra two hours a day would accomplish nothing except increasing truancy. Young kids begin to shutdown after lunch. Remember these kids aren't there to learn. There're there because a parent sent them, a free breakfast and free lunch.

 

[Rikurzhen]

Oh, yes, experimental schools. Look at the real world. Keeping elementary students in at risk schools an extra two hours a day would accomplish nothing except increasing truancy. Young kids begin to shutdown after lunch. Remember these kids aren't there to learn. There're there because a parent sent them, a free breakfast and free lunch.

Hey, hold up there buddy!!!! You were the one who objected to my point that some problems are not solvable. Now you're telling me to look at the real world. That's funny.

These experimental schools illustrate the point that there is actually a solution which exists. The problem here is scalability, idealism and politics.

Put this question to liberals. Would you support a program for troubled students which mandated twice as many hours of instruction per school year than is the case for normal students? Oh yes, incidentally, this will result in a segregated school system where these Intensive Schools are primarily filled with minority students. The bright side however is that this works to close the achievement gap.

Politically, the segregation which results as a byproduct of sorting by ability is going to piss off idealist whites, sensitive minorities and it will really rile up the parents of troubled white kids who now get stuck into these massively minority schools.

In effect this would be a separate but "more than equal" school system for this type of schooling would require more resources to accomplish the same proficiency levels as seen in traditional schools.

I very much doubt people will actually put student outcomes above their perceptions of how schooling SHOULD function.

 

[Delta4Embassy]

White Students No Longer Majority in Schools

For the first time ever, U.S. public schools are projected this fall to have more minority students than non-Hispanic whites enrolled, a shift largely fueled by growth in the number of Hispanic children.

Non-Hispanic white students are still expected to be the largest racial group in the public schools this year at 49.8 percent. But the National Center for Education Statistics says minority students, when added together, will now make up the majority.

About one-quarter of the minority students are Hispanic, 15 percent are black and 5 percent are Asian and Pacific Islanders. Biracial students and Native Americans make up a smaller share of the minority student population.

Education Secretary Arne Duncan called the changing population a seminal moment in education. "We can't talk about other people's children. These are our children," he said.

Read Latest Breaking News from Newsmax.com White Students No Longer Majority in Schools

This sucks. The report a few years ago said that we had 5 years before children under 18 becomes majority non-white clearly is wrong. Wrong because children pre-public school are even higher non-white percentages. Get ready for the shit to hit fan.

Good. Sooner whites realize there's more ethnicities in the world, the sooner they'll get over any racist feelings of superiority.

Growing up in Milpitas, California (next door to San Jose) though whites weren't a minority, it was close. So I never had the impression I was better than the Asian, Filipino, black, Native kids by virtue of being white and had friends from every ethnicty.

Multiculturalism and education is the solution, not the problem.

 

[Stephanie]

Man, you have to wonder how many ways they can find to beat down white people ?

anyone notice that lately?

everything from how there is white privilege to the schools now

You think they have a hate going on for white people or something?

sheesh

 

[Samson]

The title of the OP is slightly misleading, probably in an effort to make the issue broader than it really may be.

White students are no longer a majority in PUBLIC schools.

While this certainly has something to do with birth rates and illegal immigration of Hispanics, it also has something to do with homeschooling and private schooling being more available. Free accredited Online Education is becoming a more popular option for whites while Free and Reduced Lunches are a more popular option for Hispanics.

Online Free Burritos are not very nutritious.

 

[Delta4Embassy]

Can you both say that again, couldn't hear you clearly through your white hoods.

 

[Meathead]

Did someone mention multiculturalism? This liberal buzzword for the inability to assimilate certain immigrants is testament to that failure itself. When assimilation fails, generational mistrust of the "others" is its invariable outcome. Additionally, altruism, public works, charities and become more limited which adds to the decay and well-being of the entire population. This is the primary reason the US lags behind largely homogeneous wealthy countries in Europe and Asia.

If this failure continues unchecked, the results will become clearer in both North America and Europe. East Asians are not going to allow multiculturalism. The future is theirs.

The Ethics of Racial Preservation: Frank Salter's On Genetic Interests | Counter-Currents Publishing

 

[Samson]

Can you both say that again, couldn't hear you clearly through your white hoods.

It must be convenient for you not to wear anything to obstruct your idiotic blitherings to make them nonsensical.

 

[Samson]

Did someone mention multiculturalism? This is the primary reason the US lags behind largely homogeneous wealthy countries in Europe and Asia.

"Lags Behind?"



I'd like you to find one Wealthy Country in Europe or Asia that claims to be far ahead of the USA.



Before you post what is no doubt a litany of US criticism over our comparative standings in math testing or whatever, remember I'm asking about reports originating OUTSIDE the USA ( e.g. Japanese or German sources) that claim the USA lags behind.

 

[Meathead]

Did someone mention multiculturalism? This is the primary reason the US lags behind largely homogeneous wealthy countries in Europe and Asia.

"Lags Behind?"



I'd like you to find one Wealthy Country in Europe or Asia that claims to be far ahead of the USA.



Before you post what is no doubt a litany of US criticism over our comparative standings in math testing or whatever, remember I'm asking about reports originating OUTSIDE the USA ( e.g. Japanese or German sources) that claim the USA lags behind.

The Ethics of Racial Preservation: Frank Salter's On Genetic Interests | Counter-Currents Publishing

Wow there Sparky! If I could find them, you wouldn't be able to read them anyway. Then, there are so many different areas where liberals often point out that we are lagging behind. Education, cradle to grave welfare, health care are among them. The inevitable distrust which is part and parcel of multiculturalism, except to delusional idealist, is certain to exacerbate these "lags". Watch what happens in Europe in the oncoming 10 years.