Except that we know that 13% of HSers aged 17 were functionally illiterate, or were reading far below their level.
We do know that a major reason is ESL issues, but they are least should be able to read at a grade school level, if not 11th grade.
Lol what? Having local government in charge of rubbish collection is about as ‘socialist’ as having them in charge of gritting the roads.
That implies your friends might be wasting their money, if the schools there don’t have better teachers or facilities, but it’s simply the richer student body that leads to better test results. The same thing happens in the UK, but without the disparities in funding and largely without the racial element. Schools in poor areas get poor results, schools in rich areas get good ones, and it drives prices in those areas ever higher as better-off parents try to move into them.
I’m not sure what you’re asking? I think it results in a worse education for all the students in the class no matter whether it’s done for ideological reasons or to save money. And I also think this situation is in large part what the above mentioned richer parents are paying to avoid, whether it’s in mortgage payments or private school fees.
Is that because the city is better at cleaning up the affluent area, or because more people dump trash in the poorer one?
That’s so weird. Is it considered too dangerous for the mailman? Do they just burn the mail addressed to poor areas?
It’s more plausible in the US, where funding is apparently assigned very locally, that this makes a difference to outcomes. Yet it seems almost inevitable that parental income plays a role in general: children resemble their parents, whether that’s in intelligence, willingness to work, interest in academic pursuits, or whatever other factors influence success in education; and more educated parents are statistically likely to be richer. The only time this isn’t true is when the parents didn’t have a chance to get a good education, or to make full use of it, due to external circumstances such as being an immigrant.
Thanks for posting this, Wolfpup. When I hear people arguing about how public schools should be run (in this thread, for example), I wish they’d just say, “Why don’t we just look at some of the world’s best school systems, and copy them?”.
I remember reading a story about Lance Armstrong (before we all knew (ie, when many of us just suspected) that he was ‘dirty’) that told of some of his physiologic gifts – the things that genetically predisposed him to be a super athlete.
The story went on to say that had circumstances not conspired, he might have never learned that he had, nor been able to exploit, these rare gifts.
Which is something like how our society and our public schools work.
We hear touching stories about caring teachers who recognize elements of genius in certain of their kids, but how many of them go ‘undiscovered’ because of myriad circumstances beyond their control ?
How likely is an overloaded, underpaid, overworked teacher to make this sort of ‘discovery’ when simply trying to tread water ?
And how well can kids who come from families of modest means have these particular gifts (in reality, their strengths or their weaknesses) optimally addressed in primary ed ?
This isn’t a meritocracy. It’s more of the same Social Darwinism.
There’s a real caste system in the US. It’s not often (enough) spoken of but it really is structurally formidable. And, sadly, there are market forces that benefit from the persistence of a permanent underclass (ie, the endless supply of cheap, exploitable labor, people to fight their wars).
Yet another perverse incentive.
We absolutely should understand which countries do public education better, how they’re doing it, and then seek to implement best practices however and wherever possible.
But … y’know … 'Murica !
Sigh.
Why should someone who didn’t learn English until two years ago because they were in a Somali camp be able to read English at grade level? How many of those kids have severe learning disabilities? What percentage of the 13% graduate (hint, it varies a lot by state - very few of them will graduate in Minnesota - they are entitled to stay in school while making progress, but if they can’t read, they are unlikely to graduate without an exception - which is made for kids with learning disabilities. What percentage of those is the public school realistically capable of addressing? Because the public school system isn’t set up to work miracles with a kid whose IQ is below 90 or who learned to speak English two years ago. Maybe that IS the spot for religious education, we can pray those kids into being able to read at grade level on time.
Poor people dumping trash has nothing to do with public services being delivered better in affluent neighborhoods.
A certain amount of trash is generated by an apartment building. It is put out at the curb by the staff of that building, on the appropriate day for garbage pickup. The city sanitation department trucks pick up the trash.
Somehow, that doesn’t seem to happen on time in some neighborhoods. But it always happens on time in my neighborhood.
And if you mean do poorer New Yorkers litter more, well, maybe, I don’t know. But that’s not the issue I’m talking about. And also, obviously less affluent New Yorkers live in more cramped quarters, and so spend more time socializing outside on the street, and so litter is generated that wouldn’t be generated in a rich neighborhood. That’s true. But again, not the issue I’m talking about.
Not a clue. Nobody is burning the mail (do I detect a hint of disbelief in your post?), obviously. And I’m not aware of letter carriers in some neighborhoods being especially at risk. But the mail isn’t getting there.
I suspect that a system (like the educational system, or the garbage pickup situation) that believes (correctly, unfortunately) that it doesn’t have to respond to the complaints of people in poorer neighborhoods is at fault.
As a resident of the Bible Belt (I live in Nashville, Tennessee) and a former member of a very conservative religious group (the Churches of Christ), I agree with you. They would vastly prefer that their children never question their fundamentalist interpretation of the Bible, and see public education as a possible threat.
Unless, of course, they can infiltrate the educational system and exploit it for their own ends.
I don’t know, maybe you can google and get some cites to answer those questions.
I supplied the cites to answer a question.
I am not defending the why’s and wherefores.
I have no idea of why you are attacking me here.
I guess I don’t really understand why that’s the case. Poor people vote too, and not every city can be run by conservative bogey men?
New York City certainly isn’t run by conservative bogeyman (or at least it hasn’t been since Rudy Giuliani was mayor 
). And I didn’t say, or even imply, that it was.
I’ve spent over 30 years working in those poor neighborhoods - and for whatever the reasons are *, the people living in those poor neighborhoods often don’t make as many complaints as those in more affluent neighborhoods.
* I’m not going to speculate about what those reasons are except to say that poor people aren’t happy with dirty streets and not getting their mail delivered so it’s not that they are OK with the status quo.
Why doesn’t your brother get a post office box, or does the USPS not deliver to that area, period?
He’s having his mail delivered to my address these days. The USPS delivers to that neighborhood, it’s just that delivery is really spotty and unreliable, and if you depend on the mail to bring your paychecks, that’s a problem.
No, you didn’t. But threads like this one can easily give the impression that that the big problems with schools, and presumably the other infrastructure you’ve talked about, are caused by conservatives who don’t support them/don’t want to fund them, possibly because of racism. Yet the problems obviously aren’t confined to the red states, or cities run by Republicans. It doesn’t add up.
How are schools funded in NYC? Do schools in your neighbourhood get more or less money per pupil than those in the bad areas?
That’s just a pointless question. I get that you probably think the answers would be telling, and reveal liberal hypocrisy, or something, but really, the question “how would liberals feel about sending their kids to schools run by people who hate liberals” isn’t likely to produce any meaningful answers.
But I’d bet that plenty of liberals would be happy to send their children to religious schools, although perhaps not fundamentalist schools. At least where I live, the schools run by the Society of Friends are especially popular with affluent liberals.
And plenty of liberals, myself included, would absolutely happily send their children to Catholic schools.
One item to take into account, as a lapsed Catholic, I do recommend the schools managed by Jesuits. Others are not so commendable, and if an institution has connections to the Opus Dei, beware. They are the closest one can find among Catholics that act like the protestants that follow the prosperity gospel.
Aren’t you a Catholic yourself? Why on earth would you object to that?
I wasn’t trying to point out hypocrisy but more try to understand why they dislike public schools. My intention was to ask how you’d feel about your kids being taught ideas and principles you strongly disagree with and even consider harmful. For example, an Islamic school that teaches women should submit to men, and cover their bodies for modesty reasons. Would you happily send your kids there?
That seems to me to be the position many religious parents find themselves in, according their own beliefs of what is right and wrong.
The bigger picture is that, when one gets down to it, politics is fundamentally about two groups of people trying to impose an outcome that they know is unacceptable to the opposing side.
‘Politics being peaceful warfare and warfare being violent politics,’ and all that.
That’s what politics can be like when things are going badly – though it’s rare for there to be only two groups.
What politics is supposed to be like is multiple groups trying to figure out how to live together without doing significant damage to any of them.
Those who are seeing nothing but exactly two groups that are irredeemably opposed to each other are really hard to do politics with.
Many liberals already DO send their children to parochial schools, whether they practice that religion or not, because it’s the best school for their child.