View Single Post
Old 03-06-2011, 01:01 AM   #54
Marcy
Guru
Marcy ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.Marcy ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.Marcy ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.Marcy ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.Marcy ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.Marcy ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.Marcy ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.Marcy ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.Marcy ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.Marcy ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.Marcy ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.
 
Marcy's Avatar
 
Posts: 897
Karma: 950683
Join Date: Oct 2009
Device: Kobo Libra2
Quote:
Originally Posted by pietrocrazy View Post
Why do these children deserve a chance while other children do not?

Essentially what you're saying is let the neglected children get more neglected while the privileged children get more privileged.
No, I'm saying that families that will value the chance for a better education will take it. You don't have to be privileged to care about your children. Being poor doesn't mean you are a bad parent and don't love your children. But right now, being poor and living in a poor neighborhood with poor schools means your kid has almost no chance for a decent education. Why are you so against letting poor families who care have the option of a better education for their kids?

And for the families that don't care? Yes, it sucks for those kids. But, other than taking them away and placing them in a home that does care, there's nothing much that can be done to teach those children to value education. You take your cues from your parents.

Look at what happened to Kelley Williams-Bolar, a mom trying to get her kids into a decent school. Instead of being praised for caring about them, she was sent to jail. I can't get CPS to remove kids from drug addict parents and this mom was convicted of a felony.

You say, let all the kids suffer because some poor people are also neglectful and selfish. I say, let the kids whose families will make something of the opportunity have the chance.

If you attach the money to the kid and not the school, you create competition, which schools now lack. Schools that suck will have a small core of those lazy parents who send their kid wherever it's convenient. But schools with not enough attendance are closed to make way for new schools that will hopefully do better. All children benefit, even those with lousy parents by the improvement in the schools. It works for European schools, so why can't it work for us?

Finally, if you have a better suggestion I'd love to hear it. And don't say more money. Washington DC spends more per pupil than almost every district in the country for the crappiest performing schools in the country. We've drastically increased primary education spending and decreased class size since the 70s, and as a result have had a steady decline in performance. Our high school kids are outperformed in math and science by kids from places like Estonia, a former Soviet nation with all the problems of a post-communist society and a much lower GDP and much lower education spending than the US.

-Marcy
Marcy is offline   Reply With Quote