Why arent inner cities utopias?

[glockmail]

My family was between lower middle class and poor.

Education is a key to breaking the cycle of poverty. Don't make this about liberals and conservatives. I'm sure liberals want to break the poverty cycle as much as conservatives do.

Why do you think that vouchers will solve the problem? I can't really see them as a solution at all. Property prices and the quality of schools are linked you say, that living in good school districts is more expensive. Well with you voucher system, if you increase the demand for good private schools, that drives up their cost as well, and poor students won't be able to afford them even with a subsidized voucher. Even with a voucher system to subsidize school payment, the poor are not able to choose which school they want. You wind up with the richer families being able to afford the good private schools and the poor families only being able to afford the inferior schools again.

Sorry, but it is liberals vs conservatives, as the liberals don't want vouchers.

First of all, you are assuming a static level of private school enrollment. With increased demand comes funding for growth and economies of scale.

 

[glockmail]

So they're too poor to move out of a bad school district, but not poor enough to prevent them from relocating cities? Seriously?

What?

 

[The ClayTaurus]

What?

Would you like definitions for each of the words I used?

 

[Eightball]

This is a rather long post, so I'll just focus on quoting this part.

Even private schools "live off the teat" of the tuition of the students attending, and wouldn't be any more likely to kick out students. I'll point out three quick conclusions that I think you're drawing:

1. The fault in the schools lies with the disruptive students. Even great teachers can't be good when they're being policemen.

2. These disruptive students tend to come from economically disadvantaged families.

3. It is the high concentration of disruptive students that makes schools bad.

When you leave school quality up to the market, you will have the same outcome. The rich will be able to afford good schools. The poor will remain concentrated in bad schools, and you will still have large numbers of disruptive students in bad schools.

I think your speculating, as private schools do remove students and usually have long waiting lists to refill the spots vacated by expelled students. They would never be reliant on government "Teat" money, unless their system of education, discipline, and curriculum was unfavorable to parents. The drop-out rates at private schools hardly support your argument, as again, waiting lists can be long to get into them. There must be some reason for the waiting lists.

I have had years of private school experience with the raising of my own children, and the experience of conversing, sharing and learning from other private school parents.

The only problem I see with the voucher system is this:

Whenever uncle sam or a state government gives us back our tax money for anything, they really hook-on the strings of control if they can. Private schools that receive government vouchers will most likely be watched closely by the state authorities to make sure that the voucher money is being utilized fairly, and ethically.

That's ok, but if the State entities start mandating the curriculum then we're back to step one........we just have glorified public schools again. Although maybe there should be a certain curriculum standards to be covered, and then the private schools can offer other choices beyond those basics/standards if they choose.

If parents want to use the voucher money to educate their kid in a Catholic, Islam, or non religious school, fine and dandy. If Uncle Sam expects certain safety code, standards with giving back the tax money, fine, but just don't mess around with the curriculum in the area of ethics unless, a virulent anti-american or anti-social curriculum is being taught.

I can see why so many parents are resorting to home schooling. Even home schooling groups are around so that these kids get socializing with others of their peer groups too. This includes recreational activities, trips to historical places, museums, etc. Socializing as been one of the main critiques of the anti-home schooling element.

Also the teacher's unions are very anti-voucher, and anti-home schooling. Ever checked into their reasons? You might be surprised.

People who "poo poo" home schooling don't realize what a massive committment a parent or parents must make for this method of education to work. If done correctly these home school kids constantly score higher than the national average for their age, and grade group. Home schooling shouldn't be attempted if a parent can't be at home full time, or they lack the skills to work the system in a way thats satisfactory. If kids that our home schooled do not score within their mean national average and our not doing well, then maybe they need to be put in another education system. Not all of us parents are cut-out to be teachers. It's nothing to be ashamed of, it's just a fact. To just isolate your kid for social reasons and not for educational advantage might not be such a good idea either. Of course there are exceptions to every situation. Some kids may do good in home schooling because they are handi-capped physically, mentally or emotionally, and with a loving parent's committment, may do far better than in a special Ed class in the public school environment.

Discipline and respect for authority, and accountability, taught at home will make for better education environments at all of our public schools, regardless of their geographic locations, i.e. minority areas, low income areas.....etc. Then teachers can be teachers.

 

[glockmail]

Would you like definitions for each of the words I used?

What ever floats your boat.

 

[Annie]

Because there is affordable housing in many areas where hurricanes don't normally happen and the elevation is not several feet below sea level, but not many areas where there is both affordable houses and good public schools.

I'm not sure how you get there. There are many areas without the threat of hurricanes, affordable housing and decent public schools. Some of the worst schools are located in cities where there are plenty of wealthy residents.

Wrong arguement, though there are some that can be made.

 

[glockmail]

I'm not sure how you get there. There are many areas without the threat of hurricanes, affordable housing and decent public schools. Some of the worst schools are located in cities where there are plenty of wealthy residents.

....

You're kidding, right?

 

[Annie]

You're kidding, right?

Hardly. You think NY, LA, Chicago are bereft of 'rich'?

 

[Hamiltonian]

Sorry, but it is liberals vs conservatives, as the liberals don't want vouchers.

First of all, you are assuming a static level of private school enrollment. With increased demand comes funding for growth and economies of scale.

Then why don't conservatives want more scholarships to afford a good college education to economically disadvantaged families?

You can't really pull out economies of scale for schools. It's not like as you add more teachers each teacher gets cheaper. Schools are very difficult to run when they get large, and students have less personal contact with their peers, which is detrimental to their social education.

The larger a school is the larger area it has to cover by bus transportation. That is an example of the opposite of economies of scale. It would be like if there was a postal carrier that only served within the US, and decided to start shipping to other countries from the US, but still charged the same amount for domestic and international deliveries. Overall, the service would not save money by economies of scale.

 

[Hamiltonian]

Right now if the State of California were to convert their per/student/monetary allotment into individual vouchers, every kid's parents could afford a nice private school education.

If you convert the allotment into vouchers, then the price of a nice private school education would change.

Remember that Washington D.C. has one of the highest government monetary contributions per student, yet, they sorely lag, academically per capita student behind most of the country. Why?

Because the money is spent badly.

I think your speculating, as private schools do remove students and usually have long waiting lists to refill the spots vacated by expelled students. They would never be reliant on government "Teat" money, unless their system of education, discipline, and curriculum was unfavorable to parents. The drop-out rates at private schools hardly support your argument, as again, waiting lists can be long to get into them. There must be some reason for the waiting lists.

What you're saying here is a bit confusing. It would seem that if you make the argument that it is very hard to get into a private school, but then why would everyone with a voucher have such an easy time switching to a private school? If it would be very hard for them to get into a private school in the first place, wouldn't that mean that it wouldn't be very effective to enact this voucher program?

The only problem I see with the voucher system is this:

Whenever uncle sam or a state government gives us back our tax money for anything, they really hook-on the strings of control if they can. Private schools that receive government vouchers will most likely be watched closely by the state authorities to make sure that the voucher money is being utilized fairly, and ethically.

That's ok, but if the State entities start mandating the curriculum then we're back to step one........we just have glorified public schools again. Although maybe there should be a certain curriculum standards to be covered, and then the private schools can offer other choices beyond those basics/standards if they choose.

If parents want to use the voucher money to educate their kid in a Catholic, Islam, or non religious school, fine and dandy. If Uncle Sam expects certain safety code, standards with giving back the tax money, fine, but just don't mess around with the curriculum in the area of ethics unless, a virulent anti-american or anti-social curriculum is being taught.

The government would allow you to be able to use your voucher money to send your child to a religiously affiliated school, unless the Supreme Court decided to overturn Lemon vs. Kurtzman first.

 

[The ClayTaurus]

What ever floats your boat.

Again I will ask: a person who is too poor to relocate to a good school district is somehow able to relocate to a different city? Or at all? Is this your contention?

 

[glockmail]

Hardly. You think NY, LA, Chicago are bereft of 'rich'?

You have completely misunderstood or misrepresented the post that started your most recent line of questioning. This is not the first time, meaning that it is likely purposeful, and I find it tiring. Go away.

 

[glockmail]

Again I will ask: a person who is too poor to relocate to a good school district is somehow able to relocate to a different city? Or at all? Is this your contention?

Why don't you relocate yourself to Sandpit Road at the deignated time?

 

[The ClayTaurus]

Why don't you relocate yourself to Sandpit Road at the deignated time?

GET OVER IT.

 

[glockmail]

GET OVER IT.

Never. It is a question of honor, a concept that you no nothing about.

 

[theHawk]

Again I will ask: a person who is too poor to relocate to a good school district is somehow able to relocate to a different city? Or at all? Is this your contention?

This is the problem with liberals today. You look at "poor people" and assume that the rest of us have some sort of obligation to elevate their life situation. This country gives everyone the opportunity to make a better life for anyone that puts in the effort. Did these poor people do well in high school, or did they not even try to learn anything? The truth is these people that are "too poor" had that opportunity and passed it up. We already pay for everyone to get a free education through high school, if they didn't take advantage and didn't even try to learn something, too bad.

 

[glockmail]

This is the problem with liberals today. You look at "poor people" and assume that the rest of us have some sort of obligation to elevate their life situation. This country gives everyone the opportunity to make a better life for anyone that puts in the effort. Did these poor people do well in high school, or did they not even try to learn anything? The truth is these people that are "too poor" had that opportunity and passed it up. We already pay for everyone to get a free education through high school, if they didn't take advantage and didn't even try to learn something, too bad.

Damn straight. And for the cost of a bus ticket they can move to practically anywhere in the US. Instead they use that money on cigs, "boom boxes", and hub caps that keep spinnin' when they stop in traffic: 'look at me- I'm cool!'.

Friggin' idiots.

 

[The ClayTaurus]

This is the problem with liberals today. You look at "poor people" and assume that the rest of us have some sort of obligation to elevate their life situation. This country gives everyone the opportunity to make a better life for anyone that puts in the effort. Did these poor people do well in high school, or did they not even try to learn anything? The truth is these people that are "too poor" had that opportunity and passed it up. We already pay for everyone to get a free education through high school, if they didn't take advantage and didn't even try to learn something, too bad.

Please. I make no assumptions about anyone's obligations to help anyone.

Go back and re-read. Those who advocate vouchers claim people are too poor to elevate their life situation to a better school district.

These same advocaters claim these same poor people, who are forced to live in shitty school districts against their will because of their poorness, are perfectly able to elevate their life situation to somewhere not stricken by hurricanes.

All I'm looking for is a little consistency.

 

[sitarro]

Damn straight. And for the cost of a bus ticket they can move to practically anywhere in the US. Instead they use that money on cigs, "boom boxes", and hub caps that keep spinnin' when they stop in traffic: 'look at me- I'm cool!'.

Friggin' idiots.

You could buy a used bus for the price of some of those spinner rims.

 

[The ClayTaurus]

Never. It is a question of honor, a concept that you no nothing about.

In your opinion, of course.

You do realize that the 8-year old thing was an insult to you, not to your wife, right?