9 ms·

Not true in MN--you can open enroll your kids in any district. You may not get the exact school you want due to demographics, but it's still a valid counter-ex

Not true in MN--you can open enroll your kids in any district. You may not get the exact school you want due to demographics, but it's still a valid counter-example. By the way, why do you think wealthier people shouldn't get more advantages in life? I'm all for trying to pull people up by their bootstraps, but we can't just level everything out in some misguided attempt at 'fairness.' You will never achieve that fairness. The wealthy will always find ways to gain an advantage. Sucks about that high school, but a lot of these areas need serious political reform first before anything else can get fixed.

jschwartzi 10y ago
> By the way, why do you think wealthier people shouldn't get more advantages in life? He's not saying that. The idea he's espousing is closer to the idea that there are lots of talented kids in poor districts that get completely left behind because they live in a poor area. The only way to solve that is to provide some funding, and funding is scarce in poor districts.
coldpie 10y ago
> By the way, why do you think wealthier people shouldn't get more advantages in life? When you're talking about fundamental education of your population, this is a pretty short-sighted argument. Under-education means fewer skilled workers and more bad decision making, both of which will have an impact on Mr. Rich. Mr. Rich has a personal interest in ensuring a good education for everyone.
- throwaway729 10y ago
  That's assuming Mr. Rich controls capital. But a lot of Mr Riches aren't actually very rich -- they just happen to be well paid laborers in high prestige fields.
Pharylon 10y ago
> By the way, why do you think wealthier people shouldn't get more advantages in life? Wealthy people will always have nicer cars and better vacations and bigger houses, but that doesn't mean the children of poor people should be relegated to terrible schools where they'll have no future.
- lintiness 10y ago
  sorry, but schools are a lot less important than families.
  - CJefferson 10y ago
    In that case, let's do inverted funding -- we seriously underfund schools in rich districts, and overfund in poor ones.
    - lintiness 10y ago
      "under" and "over" fund are subjective measures of nothing. the us spends substantially more per pupil than it did 40 years ago with roughly the same results. further, we spend more per pupil than other developed countries that are delivering superior results.
  - indigo_rex 10y ago
    They're both important, and one could argue that schools are more important to children with less supportive families. You also have to consider what is breaking up the families you appear to be referencing - over-policing, redlining, etc. Even if you come to the conclusion that the poor deserve everything they get (which would be a myopic conclusion), why should children suffer for the sins of their parents?
  - Pharylon 10y ago
    It's not either/or, it's both/and. Having parents that are willing and able to be involved with their children is huge, but going to a good school is to. The top rated comment linked to a This American Life story on achievement gap and how busing poor black students to white neighborhoods in the 80s and 90s almost magically improved their scores. Don't forget that part of being an involved parent and making sure your kids get a good education is, critically, getting them in a good school.
    - lintiness 10y ago
      plenty of home schooled kids do just fine without attending "good schools".
ohyes 10y ago
Wealthier people do have more advantages in life. It's tautological to the extent that it describes what it is to be wealthy. We're talking about public education though, ideally, public education would have a universally high standard, and making funding for public education based on something like property values ensures that in certain areas it will be underfunded. So it's really about whether we take universal public education seriously or if we're just providing education to some and a state sponsored daycare service to others.
- hash-set 10y ago
  But it doesn't matter how it gets funded, it will always be chronically under-funded! I have watched this going on for thirty years! There is something inherently wrong with public education systems. I don't know if it is the unions or what, but no matter how much money we throw at them, they are always under-funded. It's amazing.
  - ohyes 10y ago
    This is a pretty interesting chart. https://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/d10/tables/dt10_083.asp https://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/d10/tables/dt10_083.asp If you go and plug the numbers in from 1970 to something that adjusts for inflation to ~2008, it doesn't seem that teacher salaries have really changed that much, maybe a 10% increase on average? Hardly seems like throwing tons of money at the problem.
    - masonic 10y ago
      It's not adjusted for reduced time spent on actual classroom and prep time or for increased benefits and pensions.
ryandrake 10y ago
Yes, the wealthy will always find ways to gain an advantage. That doesn't mean society should design the system to given an inherent advantage to them from the start. At least make the system fair and make the wealthy have to find a loophole.
nkrisc 10y ago
> By the way, why do you think wealthier people shouldn't get more advantages in life? Sure, let wealthy ADULTS have more advantages. However, children have no say in their circumstances, so I do think it is right to at least give CHILDREN equal opportunity and resources.
- briandear 10y ago
  I might argue that children are the responsibility of the parents. As far as equal resources, DC schools spend among the highest per student in the country and yet have some of the worst outcomes. The problem isn't financial, it's political. There isn't a correlation of budget per student and outcomes. Successful schools aren't the richest schools -- they are the ones with the most involved parents. The problem is cultural as wel as political. When black kids who like to read and study are bullied because they are accused of 'acting white' -- no amount of money solves that. Look at the academic success of poor Asian kids by comparison. Asian cultures and families prioritize education almost to an obsessive degree. Consider the proportion of Asians in the Ivy League compared to their proportion of the population (even when excluding international students.)
  - deleted 10y ago
    [deleted]
  - nkrisc 10y ago
    There isn't a correlation? I'll have to look more into that but it seems to me you picked the one notable exception. The cultural problems are describe are the symptoms of much larger problems, particularly systemic and deliberate deprivation of resources and opportunities for more than a century. You are correct to an extent though that part of that problem is political: the lack of political will to spend any amount of money and effort to seriously interrupt that vicious cycle.
    - hash-set 10y ago
      Well, we have thrown welfare at what? Three generations now? How has that worked out? It hasn't. We're right back where we began but now with three generations of people who have never worked for a living.

jschwartzi 10y ago

> By the way, why do you think wealthier people shouldn't get more advantages in life? He's not saying that. The idea he's espousing is closer to the idea that there are lots of talented kids in poor districts that get completely left behind because they live in a poor area. The only way to solve that is to provide some funding, and funding is scarce in poor districts.

coldpie 10y ago

> By the way, why do you think wealthier people shouldn't get more advantages in life? When you're talking about fundamental education of your population, this is a pretty short-sighted argument. Under-education means fewer skilled workers and more bad decision making, both of which will have an impact on Mr. Rich. Mr. Rich has a personal interest in ensuring a good education for everyone.

throwaway729 10y ago
That's assuming Mr. Rich controls capital. But a lot of Mr Riches aren't actually very rich -- they just happen to be well paid laborers in high prestige fields.

Pharylon 10y ago

> By the way, why do you think wealthier people shouldn't get more advantages in life? Wealthy people will always have nicer cars and better vacations and bigger houses, but that doesn't mean the children of poor people should be relegated to terrible schools where they'll have no future.

lintiness 10y ago
sorry, but schools are a lot less important than families.
- CJefferson 10y ago
  In that case, let's do inverted funding -- we seriously underfund schools in rich districts, and overfund in poor ones.
  - lintiness 10y ago
    "under" and "over" fund are subjective measures of nothing. the us spends substantially more per pupil than it did 40 years ago with roughly the same results. further, we spend more per pupil than other developed countries that are delivering superior results.
- indigo_rex 10y ago
  They're both important, and one could argue that schools are more important to children with less supportive families. You also have to consider what is breaking up the families you appear to be referencing - over-policing, redlining, etc. Even if you come to the conclusion that the poor deserve everything they get (which would be a myopic conclusion), why should children suffer for the sins of their parents?
- Pharylon 10y ago
  It's not either/or, it's both/and. Having parents that are willing and able to be involved with their children is huge, but going to a good school is to. The top rated comment linked to a This American Life story on achievement gap and how busing poor black students to white neighborhoods in the 80s and 90s almost magically improved their scores. Don't forget that part of being an involved parent and making sure your kids get a good education is, critically, getting them in a good school.
  - lintiness 10y ago
    plenty of home schooled kids do just fine without attending "good schools".

ohyes 10y ago

Wealthier people do have more advantages in life. It's tautological to the extent that it describes what it is to be wealthy. We're talking about public education though, ideally, public education would have a universally high standard, and making funding for public education based on something like property values ensures that in certain areas it will be underfunded. So it's really about whether we take universal public education seriously or if we're just providing education to some and a state sponsored daycare service to others.

hash-set 10y ago
But it doesn't matter how it gets funded, it will always be chronically under-funded! I have watched this going on for thirty years! There is something inherently wrong with public education systems. I don't know if it is the unions or what, but no matter how much money we throw at them, they are always under-funded. It's amazing.
- ohyes 10y ago
  This is a pretty interesting chart. https://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/d10/tables/dt10_083.asp https://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/d10/tables/dt10_083.asp If you go and plug the numbers in from 1970 to something that adjusts for inflation to ~2008, it doesn't seem that teacher salaries have really changed that much, maybe a 10% increase on average? Hardly seems like throwing tons of money at the problem.
  - masonic 10y ago
    It's not adjusted for reduced time spent on actual classroom and prep time or for increased benefits and pensions.

ryandrake 10y ago

Yes, the wealthy will always find ways to gain an advantage. That doesn't mean society should design the system to given an inherent advantage to them from the start. At least make the system fair and make the wealthy have to find a loophole.

nkrisc 10y ago

> By the way, why do you think wealthier people shouldn't get more advantages in life? Sure, let wealthy ADULTS have more advantages. However, children have no say in their circumstances, so I do think it is right to at least give CHILDREN equal opportunity and resources.

briandear 10y ago
I might argue that children are the responsibility of the parents. As far as equal resources, DC schools spend among the highest per student in the country and yet have some of the worst outcomes. The problem isn't financial, it's political. There isn't a correlation of budget per student and outcomes. Successful schools aren't the richest schools -- they are the ones with the most involved parents. The problem is cultural as wel as political. When black kids who like to read and study are bullied because they are accused of 'acting white' -- no amount of money solves that. Look at the academic success of poor Asian kids by comparison. Asian cultures and families prioritize education almost to an obsessive degree. Consider the proportion of Asians in the Ivy League compared to their proportion of the population (even when excluding international students.)
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
- nkrisc 10y ago
  There isn't a correlation? I'll have to look more into that but it seems to me you picked the one notable exception. The cultural problems are describe are the symptoms of much larger problems, particularly systemic and deliberate deprivation of resources and opportunities for more than a century. You are correct to an extent though that part of that problem is political: the lack of political will to spend any amount of money and effort to seriously interrupt that vicious cycle.
  - hash-set 10y ago
    Well, we have thrown welfare at what? Three generations now? How has that worked out? It hasn't. We're right back where we began but now with three generations of people who have never worked for a living.