Quote:
Originally Posted by Lady Blue
I'm not sure I understand what you're saying here. And I'm not sure how to ask for clarification in response, so I'll just open my mouth and see what comes out. I'll apologize in advance if it makes no sense.
Sounds like you're talking about the need for children to start out on an equal footing with basic education no matter what their socioeconomic status, but they're not getting that opportunity because some people are saying they don't want to pay for the education of "other" children, only their own. I'm not sure I understand that, if it's indeed what you're saying.
We all in the U.S. pay for basic elementary public education from grades K-thru-12 through our property taxes. Even if we have no children, or are retired and our children are grown, we pay these school district taxes. So, like it or not, we're paying for the education of all the "other" children. I don't understand how, (aside from private schooling) the oppotunity for public education is not there for all.
I'm confused and I'm probably misunderstanding your whole point.
|
In New Hampshire, where I live, we don't yet have kindergarten in many communities. All schools are paid for by local (town or city) property taxes. Some towns have larger tax bases than others. Their schools are better. The state sets requirements for public education, but does not provide the funding. There have been a string of lawsuits about this over the years.
Additionally, the proportion of available money allocated toward schools in a specific town is likely to be heavily influenced by the age of the town's population. In towns with predominantly retired or single adults, schools get very short funding indeed.
We have evidence that smaller student-teacher ratios (and smaller classes in general) help students learn better. But many urban schools can't afford to hire enough teachers, so we still see 30-40 kids in a classroom with one teacher.
Finally, for the past 8 years, we've had a system that evaluates schools by comparing this year's students to last year's students (rather than each group of students to their own performance the previous year), using tests that tend to measure rote memorization rather than problem-solving skills, and punishes schools with underperforming students by withdrawing funding. There is more and more pressure to provide a "voucher" system to allow schools to "compete," when those vouchers will certainly not pay enough for a child to be able to go to the best schools, leaving the most disadvantaged students in a bankrupt public education system, while children whose parents can afford better compete to get an adequate education.
In short, we have two strong statistical correlations: one shows that level of education correlates strongly with income (though not at the doctoral level). The second shows that children of poor families have significantly lower academic achievement, all else being equal. But we highlight the unusual success stories and try to pretend that every child has an equal chance (or at least a reasonable chance) to "succeed" in our country.
As I said, I don't have the answers. I understand the point of view of those who think that self-interest is the strongest motivator for adults (though I'm not sure I agree). I understand those who would let able-bodied adults starve if they don't work (though I certainly don't agree). But children don't have a choice about which family they are born into. If they are born into a middle-class or wealthy family, they will probably have access to many advantages. But the working poor and lower-income groups face tremendous obstacles from birth including hunger, poor medical care, housing insecurity, and underfunded education. The system we have in the US works well for many... but not at all well for quite a large number.
There is probably no place in the world that offers a perfect solution, but I'd like to hear from some of our non-US members about how public education is handled, and whether you feel that helps or hinders your own people.