tgo
Silver Hoya (over 500 posts)
Posts: 799
|
Post by tgo on Nov 8, 2005 16:46:56 GMT -5
School vouchers are opposed because they are not intended to help lower income people and they won't. that is a difference of opinion on the results of the policy that can be debated, we obviously both feel our argument will ultimately be vindicated. But because there are arguments with merits on both sides, that doesnt mean the the intent of the policy is not what it appears to be on the surface. If the Republicans really wanted to make our schools better for everyone, as you so idealisitically would like to believe, they would spend money on education as our first national priority. education spending is not related to education performance, quite the contrary, there appears to actually be a inverse relationship across the country, the more you spend the worse the schools do, so looking at the facts, who cares about education? the party that throws money at it to the benefit of the unions that get them elected while dooming another generation to failure, trapped in government schools, or the party that looks for new solutions based on the facts in a market economy. the society needs to make amends... for everyone's long term benefit. that type of thinking was prevalent in dealing with Germany between the World Wars. how does racism make up for racism? if his skin color doesn't matter, why on earth did Bush the Father nominate him in the first place? No one ever said (except Bush) that he was the most qualified person in America to be on the Supreme Court sure, bush saw that by nominating a black judge who viewed the consitution the way he did would have a better chance of getting confirmed, that doesnt make the nomination of a black judge a goal on to it self. bush looked for the best candidate who at the same time had the best chance of being confirmed. why did democrats confirm him if he was so unqualified? Thomas -- who is supposed to provide diversity and represent black americans on the court do black americans live by a different consitution than i do? A Supreme justice is supposed to have the experience & intellect to look to the constitution and find the guidlines for how issues that are not specifically dealt with in our governing document should be dealt with based on the principles found in that document. have you ever listened to Pat Robertson, Jerry Falwell, Tom DeLay, Dick Cheney Pat Robertson & Jerry Falwell dont get to speak at conventions, they arent trotted out on meet the press as reps of the right wing of american politics. if you want to talk about Tom DeLay, Dick Cheney... well we could go all day with possibly corrupt leaders and quotes from others that were wrong or even assine with the benefit of hindsight from both sides of the aisle. Are you equating Tom Delay with Al Sharpton or Robert Byrd?
|
|
SFHoya99
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
Posts: 17,747
|
Post by SFHoya99 on Nov 8, 2005 18:47:22 GMT -5
tgo, I can always spring for a beer.
I guess what offended me most in your post is the fact that you effectively decry those that stereotype others -- that a black person must do this, etc -- but then blanket statement anyone who votes different than you.
You tell SirSaxa "that is a difference of opinion on the results of the policy that can be debated, we obviously both feel our argument will ultimately be vindicated. But because there are arguments with merits on both sides, that doesnt mean the the intent of the policy is not what it appears to be on the surface" but at the same time deride the intent of quite a few other folks.
|
|
SirSaxa
Silver Hoya (over 500 posts)
Posts: 747
|
Post by SirSaxa on Nov 8, 2005 22:10:56 GMT -5
that doesnt mean the the intent of the policy is not what it appears to be on the surface. OK... and we went to war in Iraq because of WMD right? so looking at the facts, who cares about education? the party that throws money at it to the benefit of the unions that get them elected while dooming another generation to failure, trapped in government schools, or the party that looks for new solutions based on the facts in a market economy. The party that cares about education? i guess that would be the republicans. We can see just how much they care by their recent actions in Kansas in regard to the teaching of evolution. Check out this story in today's W. Post: Excerpts: ""This is a great day for education. This is one of the best things that we can do. This absolutely teaches more about science," said Steve E. Abrams, the Kansas board chairman who shepherded the conservative Republican majority that overruled a 26-member science committee and turned aside the National Academy of Sciences and the National Science Teachers Association." "The bitterly fought effort pushes Kansas to the forefront of a war over evolution being waged in courts in Pennsylvania and Georgia and statehouses nationwide. President Bush stated his own position last summer, buoying social conservatives when he said "both sides" should be taught." Article: media3.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/11/08/AR2005110801211.htmlThat's the president and the party to whom you wish to trust the education of American children?
|
|
aggypryd
Golden Hoya (over 1000 posts)
Posts: 2,418
|
Post by aggypryd on Nov 9, 2005 11:28:50 GMT -5
Maybe if the lower portion (economically speaking) of the black community spent more time emulating and listening to people like Bill Cosby (allegations of his personal problems -which I confess I know nothing about- aside) and less time subscribing to the type of group think aggy suggests then they would be better off. Why are successful people so vilified for wanting and pursuing success? Could they possibly have figured some things out that others aren’t seeing? Thanks, TGO...proves you know absolutely nothing about me, or where I come from... I'm a HUGE supporter of what Bill Cosby said...It's totally true...Lower class Blacks stood the most to gain from Brown v. Board of Education, and did very little to take advantage of it... But I know I'm DEFINITELY tired of White people telling me and other Black people who they should like, and what leader is acceptable... And I do reiterate my hate for Clarence Thomas, Condoleeza Rice, Armstrong Williams and other Black conservatives that parade around in the Republican party and try to convince me that G-Dub and his "Cronies" have my best interest at heart... I never said that Democrats do...at least the Republicans do me the courtesy of calling me [Edited] to my face. And don't ever insinuate that the reason that poor Black people are in the predicament they're in is entirely their own fault...You insult me and other Black people with that line of thinking.
|
|
kchoya
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Enter your message here...
Posts: 9,934
|
Post by kchoya on Nov 9, 2005 13:54:05 GMT -5
If you stopped hating Clarence Thomas, Condoleeza Rice, Armstrong Williams, and other black conservatives, that would be a step in the right direction.
|
|
aggypryd
Golden Hoya (over 1000 posts)
Posts: 2,418
|
Post by aggypryd on Nov 9, 2005 15:45:55 GMT -5
If you stopped hating Clarence Thomas, Condoleeza Rice, Armstrong Williams, and other black conservatives, that would be a step in the right direction. Why is that? Do you think loving them will be the answer? I tried that before...doesn't work... That's that Bullsh*t they use to tell slaves..."You gotta love Massuh, even though he mistreats you...Even those Blacks that work in the house, you gotta love them too..." Naw, Dog...not me...never again... never again...
|
|
kchoya
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Enter your message here...
Posts: 9,934
|
Post by kchoya on Nov 9, 2005 17:46:46 GMT -5
Hate gets you nowhere. I'm not saying you have to love anyone.
There are a lot of people I'm not too fond of (Dems or otherwise), but I don't hate them.
However, if you want to go on hating people, especially people you've never even met, and turning everything into something about slavery, then go right ahead.
|
|
|
Post by jerseyhoya34 on Nov 12, 2005 20:29:29 GMT -5
Not sure whether this one belongs in a new thread, but here it is: "Today when most of the country thinks of who controls Massachusetts, I think the modern day KKK comes to mind - the Kennedy, Kerry Klan," Walpin said, according to Appel, who reviewed a tape recording of the event. " -Gerald Walpin, a member of the Federalist Society Board of Visitors www.metrowestdailynews.com/localRegional/view.bg?articleid=114055Sometimes accusing others of racism is just as damaging and hateful as racism itself. Romney was right to rebuke the speaker.
|
|
Nevada Hoya
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
Posts: 18,433
|
Post by Nevada Hoya on Nov 13, 2005 15:14:26 GMT -5
Whew! And I thought this thread was about Frank Black. Interesting debate.
|
|
Cambridge
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Canes Pugnaces
Posts: 5,303
|
Post by Cambridge on Nov 13, 2005 19:33:29 GMT -5
education spending is not related to education performance, quite the contrary, there appears to actually be a inverse relationship across the country, the more you spend the worse the schools do, so looking at the facts, who cares about education? the party that throws money at it to the benefit of the unions that get them elected while dooming another generation to failure, trapped in government schools, or the party that looks for new solutions based on the facts in a market economy. Personally this is my favorite argument. It's always dropped by fiscal conservatives on both sides of the aisle. Of course, when you ask them how much they spend on their childrens' education, they blanche and say that is irrelevent and has no bearing on the argument. Personally, having attended Exeter, studied abroad in high school, attending Gtown and now law school...I am surrounded by students whose parents spent hundreds of thousands of dollars on their education. They don't seem to bat an eyelash at those expenses. Nor do they question that its worth it. However, if you are to ask them if they are willing to pay for the education of others, they tell me spending money won't solve the problem. Not saying that money is the only, or even the best solution, but I find the argument pretty ironic when those who present it are often writing checks of up to $30K a year for their child to attend preschool in NY.
|
|
|
Post by joehoya07 on Nov 13, 2005 22:08:11 GMT -5
well this fiscal conservative went to public schools his whole life and now pays for his own college education, so I suppose I'm allowed to comment. It's beyond doubt that money has little to do with the quality of public schools...DC happens to spend the most money per student of any school system in the country, and its results are among the worst. In my hometown, new york city, the school bureaucracy is unbelievably wasteful. at any given time, only half of the teachers employed are actually teaching. the teachers unions fight any proposed reforms tooth and nail, while constantly called for greater funding for schools. Without meaningful reform, we shouldnt pump one more penny into public schools.
|
|
Cambridge
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Canes Pugnaces
Posts: 5,303
|
Post by Cambridge on Nov 13, 2005 22:13:57 GMT -5
so basically because school districts spend money inefficiently, resources = bad. So in order to tackle the inefficiency we should choke them off completely rather than reform the way they function and spend the money. Makes sense to me. Totally.
Yep, its undisputed that resources are bad and counterproductive to results. How can I argue with that?
|
|
|
Post by joehoya07 on Nov 14, 2005 8:09:29 GMT -5
No one said that "resources" were bad and counterproductive. But anyone seriously looking at the facts can see that simply pumping more and more money into the school system does nothing to improve results. There is plenty of money being spent now...the way it is spent has to be drastically altered.
|
|
EasyEd
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 7,272
|
Post by EasyEd on Nov 14, 2005 8:29:38 GMT -5
More Federal money is being spent on education under the Bush administration than in any prior administration.
|
|
Cambridge
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Canes Pugnaces
Posts: 5,303
|
Post by Cambridge on Nov 14, 2005 11:00:28 GMT -5
No one said that "resources" were bad and counterproductive. But anyone seriously looking at the facts can see that simply pumping more and more money into the school system does nothing to improve results. There is plenty of money being spent now...the way it is spent has to be drastically altered. I am not disagreeing with that point at all. I merely take issue with those (and I may have misunderstood your intitial post) who jump from the one logical point that money is being spent inefficiently to the conclusion that the only solution is choking off the education system. I completely and utterly agree that the education system needs a complete overhaul, however I will never believe that resources do not have a direct impact on performance. Of course, those resources must actually reach the student and impact their educational experience...not get lost in the bureaucracy of the school system. Also, I do take issue with your "uncontested" "unquestioned" numbers you are firing off with no reference whatsoever. Here are some numbers I pulled from the PBS series on Brown v. Education. In 22 states, the highest poverty school districts receive less per-student funding from state and local sources than the district with the lowest proportion of students living in poverty. This is also true of the nation as a whole — the poorest 25 percent of school districts nationwide receive less funding than the wealthiest 25 percent. In 28 states, the school districts with the highest percentage of minority children receive less funding than districts with the fewest minority children. The National Center for Education Statistics reports that in schools with minority enrollments of less than 6 percent, 74 percent of the instructional classrooms have Internet access. But in schools that have minority enrollments of more than 50 percent, only 43 percent of the instructional classrooms have Internet access. In schools where less than 11 percent of students are poor ,74 percent of instructional classrooms have Internet access. But in schools with more than 71 percent poor students, only 39 percent of instructional classrooms have Internet access. A 1999 survey by National Public Radio, the Kaiser Family Foundation, and the Kennedy School of Government found that 83 percent of Americans favor equalizing school funding, even at the price of transferring resources from wealthy districts to poor ones.
|
|
|
Post by fsohoya on Nov 14, 2005 11:18:14 GMT -5
I just thought I'd jump in to illuminate something Cambridge wrote concerning resources. He is correct that the wealthiest districts spend more than the poorest, but not by much. According to the most recent federal data, in the 1999-2000 school year the fifth of districts with the lowest poverty, as measured by the percentage of students eligible for free and reduced-price lunches, spent $7,302 per student. However, the fifth of districts with the highest poverty spent almost as much: $7,247. More interestingly, the highest poverty districts spent significantly more than the three fifths of districts with middling poverty. Bottom Line: High poverty districts are NOT EVEN CLOSE TO UNDERFUNDED relative to all districts. Download the data yourself to see: nces.ed.gov/programs/coe/2005/pdf/36_2005.pdf
|
|
|
Post by joehoya07 on Nov 14, 2005 14:05:18 GMT -5
Not to mention that one need only look at Catholic schools to see that the amount of money spent per pupil does not have a direct correlation to results. Catholic schools spend far less per pupil and have vastly superior test scores. It is unfortunate that there is such rabid opposition to school vouchers from the left since it takes money out of the hands of hapless bureaucrats and gives it to schools that are already operating efficiantly. It's interesting that many of those who talk the most about working to help minorities oppose one of the programs that would benefit minority families the most.
|
|
Cambridge
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Canes Pugnaces
Posts: 5,303
|
Post by Cambridge on Nov 14, 2005 14:16:11 GMT -5
You wrongly assume that I am opposed to vouchers. I am not, because I can't honestly look a parent in the face and tell them they shouldn't be able to use a stop gap solution like vouchers for their own child because it will undermine a larger societal reform for future generations.
But, that's just the thing - voucher systems are just stop gaps that don't deal with the problem but merely shift it to others and attempt to sweep it under the table. There is absolutely no way the current private sector can possibly deal with every US student K-12. It's just not possible. Will those schools provide buses, lunches, etc?
Clearly there is much reform that needs to be done, but I don't hear either side of the aisle suggesting anything meaningful. One side wants to maintaint the status quo at all costs but increase funding. While the other wishes to hold the students and teachers to higher standards while systematically choking off funding and resources and push students toward private, parochial education. I can't say that either side is an intelligent or meaningful approach to what I see as the largest, most pressing problem in American society.
Look at education standards around the globe. Show me which of the top nations in basic math, reading, writing, science, etc. does it with a completely privatized, decentralized system.
I would wager that most of the best school systems in the world are centrally funded, universal curriculum systems.
That being said, I have absolutely no problems with the private school system. Hell, I went to public schools in downtown Richmond, VA in the 80s and would have continued there throughout high school if Exeter hadn't recruited me.
Incidently, my brothers both continued on through the public schools in Richmond (which are chronically underfunded) and now attend American and GW respectively.
|
|
SirSaxa
Silver Hoya (over 500 posts)
Posts: 747
|
Post by SirSaxa on Nov 14, 2005 15:14:45 GMT -5
Not to mention that one need only look at Catholic schools to see that the amount of money spent per pupil does not have a direct correlation to results. Catholic schools spend far less per pupil and have vastly superior test scores. It is unfortunate that there is such rabid opposition to school vouchers from the left since it takes money out of the hands of hapless bureaucrats and gives it to schools that are already operating efficiantly. It's interesting that many of those who talk the most about working to help minorities oppose one of the programs that would benefit minority families the most. Do you think the Goverment has a responsibility to educate young people? All young people? Does it disturb you that vouchers would cause public tax dollars to go to support catholic schools and other religious schools, thereby breaching the church-state boundary? What would you do to improve education for those who are unable to take advantage of school vouchers? How does removing money from the public educational system help to improve or reform it? Private schools already exist as an option for those who wish to spend the money for the education of their own children. That is fine. But what is the justification for taking money allocated to public schools to support elite private schools that are not available to everyone? Do you consider Republican Mayor Michael Bloomberg to be a "hapless bureaucrat"? How about George Bush?
|
|
EasyEd
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 7,272
|
Post by EasyEd on Nov 14, 2005 15:19:40 GMT -5
To cite that money allocated to the poorest area schools is less than that to higher income areas is very misleading. If you had to guess where the poorest areas are I think most would probably say in the rural South. Probably true. And the fact of the matter is that in the rural South everything receives less money because it's not there.
Not politically correct to say so but, in my opinion, the primary cause of poor education is the existence of so many single moms with no father to support and help educate the children in the homes. Unfortunately a much higher percent of these are in African American families. I think the education system in this country is in need of major overhaul but it will never succeed with the large number of children being raised by single moms and grandmothers.
|
|