And there's the Catch 22. The only way for the government to raise money is to take it from someone else.
Krugman is an idiot. That is all you need to know. So if "poor urban schools" were given equal funding as those "rich suburban schools," that would take care of the problem? Again, like most others on this forum, you miss the point.
When's the last time you set foot inside an inner-city public school? Poverty doesn't cause shitty parenting. Poverty correlates with factors that make effective parenting harder. For example, poor parents are likely to be less educated than middle class or wealthy parents. Less educated parents produce harder-to-educate children, for more reasons than I could begin to list. Poverty also correlates with malnutrition, high asthma rates, high absenteeism and instability (moving from school to school), high rates of abuse, and emotional difficulties due to exposure to violence... and so many more hindrances to learning. Poor parents are more likely to work two jobs or work odd hours, giving them less time to spend with their own children. They're also more likely to be drug addicts or criminals, relative to higher income parents. Now I guess we could say, "That's the luck of the draw." If you happen to be unlucky enough to be born into a poor family, you will just have more to overcome. It's on you to get past these challenges and take advantage of the opportunities out there. Despite all the various poverty-associated factors which make your success in life highly unlikely, technically you have all the same opportunities as everyone else. To me, that's not actual "equality of opportunity." Other people's mileage may vary.
What does this matter? It's a fallacy that only those have experienced an inner-city public school are those that can comment on it. It would be like saying that only a surviving Jew can comment on the Holocaust. So, basically, if he answers, "yes," and says it wasn't that bad, you will just write it off as anecdotal. If he answers, "no," you will say he has no basis for his assertion and thus is not able to provide any input - another anecdote.
It matters because his assertion does not reflect the reality of poor urban schools. He's suggesting that the opportunity to obtain an education is equal in a wealthy suburb and in a poor urban area. I'd like to know what that assertion is based on? What is his experience with public schools in very low-SES communities? Obviously I'm not interested in an anecdote about one visit to one school. The point of the question is to find out if he actually has any real experience with high needs schools, or is just saying stuff he thinks is true or wishes to be true.
I'll redirect you to my original post since I was editing as you were responding; however, my point still stands.
Honey, don't be ridiculous. You can learn about the Holocaust through a huge assortment of resources available. What resources are available to learn about what actually goes on inside inner-city schools? If he wants to answer, "I don't have personal experience, but I've read several books on the subject," and maybe give some examples of the titles, that's fine. At least then he's not just saying shit he made up. But I'm suspecting right now there was a lot more assumption and wishful thinking than actual knowledge in what he posted.
Personally my company has been contracted to do maintenance work in the CPSD so I have been in the buildings myself during school hours. I also have a sister in law that started her teaching career in the SWSD, two people I play soccer with taught in a grade school in North Linden and a good friends' wife taught in a grade school in Franklinton. So please tell us about your experiences in inner city schools so we can qualify any of your future comments on the subject.
Now that we are starting in with an 'inner city school' although in Germany - i've really been paying attention to the soft skills some 5yr olds lack. Like the ability to sit still and concentrate The ability to control impulses Even whether they have learned the soft skills associated with reading. I am no expert on this stuff - my mother is - but she showed me impt learned skills with my 2yr old girls - like how to sit with a book - well before they can read, they learn the pre-reading skills. The idea that it is a level playing field is laughable. And being an 'immigrant' is simply prejudicial. At my school, the asian kids who did not speak english so well yet had superb focus. In many respects better able to learn than a lot of the middle class local kids. its not about whether you are an immigrant or poor. But as you say - you'll find those problems in the poor families with bells on. It is sad how early these disadvantages accrue. In particular parents who use TV to substitute for reading.
The original assertion was that you could not comment on inner-city schools unless you'd set foot inside one of them. Who ever said it was level? Being an immigrant is not at all prejudicial. The point was that most immigrants come to this country with NOTHING. Does that not constitute poor/impoverished? Or can you only be poor and impoverished if you were born in America? Those books are so damn expensive! It's not about $$$ and you pointed that in parts that I cut, but I cannot help but think that the premise behind your 'poor parenting' argument is being poor. Am I wrong?
source/link? If he's an idiot, he is one lucky mother ********er of an idiot. His predictions come true a hell of alot.
Immigrants, by their very nature, are unlike the rest of the population. Also, lots of children of immigrants aren't successful. Also, people put value in rags-to-riches stories because they represent an anomaly, not because they are the norm. You're welcome.
Well, yeah. "poverty = shitty parenting" was meant o be an oversimplification. The cost of everything increases when you're poor, and there's been studies that suggest being poor makes you a poorer decision maker than otherwise.
Translation: He pisses you off because you disagree with everything he writes but you're not in position to refute him, as he knows the subject matter much better than you do.
So when faced with facts that are inconvenient to your worldview, your response is "The Princeton professor whose article the chart appears in is an idiot, therefore, I do not need to address it." Nice.
If you read my original post, you'll see that I said that some might have to work harder to take advantage of that opportunity.
Of course. But that caveat comically understates the level of obstacles in the way of opportunities. It's akin to saying, "Everyone has an opportunity to an NBA point guard. Some might have to work harder!" Because it's technically true! I think the "land of opportunities" myth is a useful one in setting the national psyche and as a motivation tactic, but that doesn't mean it's true, at least in a way that's appreciably moreso than other industrialized, democratic nations.
Yup, alot of these immigrants will walk 2000 miles to get a shit job washing plates at a diner and be grateful for it. Their kids will also work to help put food on the table. Every now and then a couple of them are lucky enough to go to college. (which the Mitt's of the world want to end)
Really? Based on what proof? And I guess it depends on what your definition of "mobility" is -- or the definition used by whatever statistic you're referring to.
Which is the major reason I support immigrant issues by and large. Too many Americans won't take the bus across town for the same job -- they'd rather whine about how the system & the 1% ********ed them over.