20 years after welfare reform

Bill said:
The way it is set up-poor going to poor schools, rich to rich schools....
Click to expand...

San Francisco eliminated neighborhood schools and have bus kids across town trying to get a better economic mix. Most parents hate it and SF has the smallest number of kids of any big U.S city.

East Palo Alto buses it's kids to four different schools. You talk to people who went to those schools and say the kids from the neighborhood hung together and the kids from EPA hung together with little inter action.
 
Bill said:
Yes, but it falls extremely hard on who?? Do I really need to draw that picture??
Click to expand...

When people bring up welfare it correctly gets pointed out there are more white people on food stamps than any other race. So with more poor white people aren't they hit hardest?
 
Bill said:

THE BIG EVIL PLOT THICKENS IN A CAULDRON OF LIES, HALF TRUTHS & NAIVE MYTHS...



1. More Republicans voted in favor of the Civil Rights Act than Democrats
In the 1960s, Congress was divided on civil rights issues -- but not necessarily along party lines.

"Most people don't realize that today at all -- in proportional terms, a far higher percentage of Republicans voted for this bill than did Democrats, because of the way the Southerners were divided," said Purdum.

The division was geographic. The Guardian's Harry J. Enten broke down the vote, showing that more than 80% of Republicans in both houses voted in favor of the bill, compared with more than 60% of Democrats. When you account for geography, according to Enten's article, 90% of lawmakers from states that were in the Union during the Civil War supported the bill compared with less than 10% of lawmakers from states that were in the Confederacy.
Enten points out that Democrats still played a key role in getting the law passed.

"It was also Democrats who helped usher the bill through the House, Senate, and ultimately a Democratic president who signed it into law," Enten writes.

2. A fiscal conservative became an unsung hero in helping the Act pass
Ohio's Republican Rep. William McCulloch had a conservative track record -- he opposed foreign and federal education aid and supported gun rights and school prayer. His district (the same one now represented by House Speaker John Boehner) had a small African-American population. So he had little to gain politically by supporting the Civil Rights Act.

Yet he became a critical leader in getting the bill passed.
His ancestors opposed slavery even before the Civil War, and he'd made a deal with Kennedy to see the bill through to passage.
"The Constitution doesn't say that whites alone shall have our most basic rights, but that we all shall have them," McCulloch would say to fellow legislators.
Later, he would play a key role in the 1965 Voting Rights Act and the 1968 Fair Housing Act and become part of the Kerner Commission, appointed by the Johnson administration to investigate the 1967 race riots.

Kennedy's widow, Jacqueline Kennedy, wrote him an "emotional" letter when he retired from Congress in 1972.
"You made a personal commitment to President Kennedy in October 1963, against all interests of your district," she wrote. "There were so many opportunities to sabotage the bill, without appearing to do so, but you never took them. On the contrary, you brought everyone else along with you."[/CENTER]
Click to expand...

Are you talking about the Civil Rights act, or LBS great society legislation.
 
Zake said:
Because it's not just a city problem and there is no way cities can do that. It needs to be a national priority, not a local one. What you are saying is Republican for let's do nothing and justify it with nonsense
Click to expand...

I noticed Zake Flaked in response to my question.
 
cawacko said:
When people bring up welfare it correctly gets pointed out there are more white people on food stamps than any other race. So with more poor white people aren't they hit hardest?
Click to expand...

Have you looked??

Out in rural areas there is a higher percent in shitty schools but look @ you own city....... Or our state..

Do you agree that poor kids should have to go to poor schools & rich kids should get to go to rich schools??

Do you think those kids forced into poor schools start w/ an advantage? Disadvantage? or same as rich kids??
 
Bill said:
Have you looked??

Out in rural areas there is a higher percent in shitty schools but look @ you own city....... Or our state..

Do you agree that poor kids should have to go to poor schools & rich kids should get to go to rich schools??

Do you think those kids forced into poor schools start w/ an advantage? Disadvantage? or same as rich kids??
Click to expand...

We have one of the richest cities in the country, we force kids to go across the city in the name of diversity and our schools suck. What does that tell us?

What have we heard for years? They get more money, things don't change and the response we need even more money.

It's why the status quo is unacceptable.
 
cawacko said:
We have one of the richest cities in the country, we force kids to go across the city in the name of diversity and our schools suck. What does that tell us?

What have we heard for years? They get more money, things don't change and the response we need even more money.

It's why the status quo is unacceptable.
Click to expand...

Is it the teachers allocating the money?? It's the damn bureaucrats........ Multiple layers of patronage, favors & protecting ones own ass........
 
Bill said:
Is it the teachers allocating the money?? It's the damn bureaucrats........ Multiple layers of patronage, favors & protecting ones own ass........
Click to expand...

There's a huge waste in the beaucracy which is why charter schools have such appeal
 
Bill said:
Have you looked??

Out in rural areas there is a higher percent in shitty schools but look @ you own city....... Or our state..

Do you agree that poor kids should have to go to poor schools & rich kids should get to go to rich schools??

Do you think those kids forced into poor schools start w/ an advantage? Disadvantage? or same as rich kids??
Click to expand...

schools of choice would be an excellent solution.......why do liberals hate schools of choice?.....
 
Zake said:
It seems to me that Republicans are keeping them the underclass by preventing helping them with anything but money. What they need is more education, which you keep only available to the middle class and up. I was only an OK student when I started my education. Got OK grades. I got motivated and carried it through to my PhD. Think of what a difference it would make to open that up to lower classes. And as for poverty, when you can't eat, that's what you focus on. And infrastructure not only benefits all Americans but provides jobs to the people who need it the most as well.

You need to move past the Republican rhetoric and deal with the real issues
Click to expand...

It could very well be that liberals don't want the poor educated; because then they might just realize how things actually work and switch to the right.
 
Oddly enough, or not, the more educated seem to shy away from the party of bush's, niXon & that other guy that isn't a crook........:dunno:
 
cawacko said:
The current model needs to change but not towards one more federally controlled.

There are solutions out there. Charter schools are one example. By themselves they are not a panacea but they offer an alternative but people fight tooth and nail against them. The Bay Area has numerous charter like schools created by entrepreneurs that are attempting to transform education.

Steve Jobs was a Democrat which is neither here nor there but there's a great blurb in his biography written by Walter Isaccson where he was meeting with Obama and they were discussing education and Jobs got so fed up he finally told Obama all you do is give me reasons/excuses for why things can't change. It was a perfect example of why D.C. shouldn't be in charge.
Click to expand...
Oh Jesus God Wacko. How many charter schools have to fail and produce poorer results before you will recognize that they are a drain on public education resources. Freaken like 75% of them have failed in Ohio and Ohio isn't exactly Mississippi when it comes to education.
 
cawacko said:
Thats the point, if we rely on the federal gov't things won't get done. Hence the need for state and local control. Within that context there needs to be more flexibility and open mindedness to creative changes.
Click to expand...
To a degree. Federal standards are not a bad idea. Otherwise you have places where your taught in science class that life began 5,000 years ago by an invisible guy n the sky who can't manage money or educational resources are spent where they are truly important...on basketball or football or enough is invested to make sure they will be good little worker bees for McDonalds and Wallmart.

Federal standards are needed but even with Federal Standards our educational system is still largely controlled locally.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top