Please turn on javascript in your browser to play chess.
Debates Forum

Debates Forum

  1. Subscriber mchill
    cryptogram
    30 Oct '16 16:27 / 5 edits
    As many of you know, school districts all over the country are mired in a caste system. Schools in affluent areas are better financed due to the availability of more tax funds in that district. As a result, these students are better educated, are more likely to meet the scholastic requirements for college. The opposite is true for the poorer areas, these under funded schools are normally in bad repair, the teachers are over worked and demoralized, school violence is commonplace, and being an under educated bully (thug) is almost a badge of honor here. It seems to me that each state should collect all the available revenue and allocate it equally to each school district, this and and eliminating special levies and other gimmicks that would give one district an unfair advantage would be a more fair system. This is NOT going to happen of course, affluent areas love their superior educational status and would fight this tooth and nail, but it would give all students a more equal chance at a good education. Other countries allocate educational resources to their school this way, why not the USA? Any thoughts
  2. 30 Oct '16 17:00
    Originally posted by mchill
    As many of you know, school districts all over the country are mired in a caste system. Schools in affluent areas are better financed due to the availability of more tax funds in that district. As a result, these students are better educated, are more likely to meet the scholastic requirements for college. The opposite is true for the poorer areas, these und ...[text shortened]... ce at a good education. Other countries run their school this way, why not the USA? Any thoughts
    a minimum federal funding for all.
    if you are a rich kid in a rich neighborhood you can get the parents to give more.



    "Any thoughts"
    some americans get panic attacks as soon as they hear "federal programs"
  3. 30 Oct '16 17:01
    Originally posted by Zahlanzi
    a minimum federal funding for all.
    if you are a rich kid in a rich neighborhood you can get the parents to give more.



    "Any thoughts"
    some americans get panic attacks as soon as they hear "federal programs"
    I prefer surrendering all my power to a distant federal entity that really cares.

    Individuals have no idea what is best for them.
  4. Subscriber mchill
    cryptogram
    30 Oct '16 17:02
    Originally posted by Zahlanzi
    a minimum federal funding for all.
    if you are a rich kid in a rich neighborhood you can get the parents to give more.



    "Any thoughts"
    some americans get panic attacks as soon as they hear "federal programs"
    a minimum federal funding for all.

    That's fine, but how about making it equal funding for all?
  5. Subscriber mchill
    cryptogram
    30 Oct '16 17:04 / 1 edit
    Originally posted by whodey
    I prefer surrendering all my power to a distant federal entity that really cares.

    Individuals have no idea what is best for them.
    I prefer surrendering all my power to a distant federal entity that really cares.

    I was speaking of each state allocating funds to each school district Whodey, not the Federal Government. Do you even read these posts before you respond??
  6. 30 Oct '16 17:05
    Originally posted by mchill
    a minimum federal funding for all.

    That's fine, but how about making it equal funding for all?
    The only hope for equality is to take everyone's money and show them how it should be spent.

    Naturally, right wingers will scream the typical "Constitutional rights", blah, blah, blah.

    What they don't realize is though, it is that very Constitution that gives them the freedom to improve their personal lot in life which breeds injustice. Therefore, they must be crushed!
  7. Standard member vivify
    rain
    30 Oct '16 17:53
    Originally posted by mchill
    As many of you know, school districts all over the country are mired in a caste system. Schools in affluent areas are better financed due to the availability of more tax funds in that district. As a result, these students are better educated, are more likely to meet the scholastic requirements for college. The opposite is true for the poorer areas, these und ...[text shortened]... countries allocate educational resources to their school this way, why not the USA? Any thoughts
    This is an interesting idea. But a potential drawback is that while the poorer schools increase their quality, the opposite may happen for richer schools. The net result would be a higher minimum quality of schools, which is good; but, it is a reasonable argument that parents who pay more in taxes to live in an area, should expect more of a return for their kids.

    This is where we should start to complain about excess government spending, such as with our military. Not only do we spend more on the military than the next 26 nations combined (most of whom are allies), the U.S. needlessly engaged in endless (and costly) wars, most of which result in much more harm than good. This is a collosal and unethical waste of taxpayer money.

    There's no reason for the U.S. to not have the best schools on earth. The U.S. has the top three universities in the world, half of the top 10 universities, and most of the top 20 universities. The U.S. needlessly inhibits itself.

    Source on universities :

    https://www.theguardian.com/higher-education-network/ng-interactive/2016/sep/05/top-200-universities-in-the-world-2016-the-table
  8. 30 Oct '16 18:43
    Originally posted by Zahlanzi
    a minimum federal funding for all.
    if you are a rich kid in a rich neighborhood you can get the parents to give more.



    "Any thoughts"
    some americans get panic attacks as soon as they hear "federal programs"
    This minimum funding with the rich giving more to their kids' schools isn't much different from what we have now, where conservative leaders minimize public funding for schools. I know parents in wealthy areas who are expected to pay thousands to their kids' school for special extras that perpetuate the inequity. And I know upper middle class parents who have high quality private schools for their kids. These kids have a leg up on getting into top colleges.

    Let's face it, the class structure is getting baked in to US society.
  9. Subscriber Suzianne
    Misfit Queen
    30 Oct '16 19:22 / 1 edit
    Originally posted by vivify
    This is an interesting idea. But a potential drawback is that while the poorer schools increase their quality, the opposite may happen for richer schools. The net result would be a higher minimum quality of schools, which is good; but, it is a reasonable argument that parents who pay more in taxes to live in an area, should expect more of a return for thei ...[text shortened]... er-education-network/ng-interactive/2016/sep/05/top-200-universities-in-the-world-2016-the-table
    And the university system in the US still gets adequate funding, even though there are private universities. Republicans have been playing a "zero-sum" game in state legislatures by shifting funds almost exclusively to private, for-profit elementary and middle schools while defunding public schools.

    Equal money for all schools is a good first step. The for-profit schools have had so much more money for years now, leaving public schools, especially inner-city schools serving black communities severely underfunded to the point of closing. Catch up the public schools first, and then and only then commit to an equal funding rule.
  10. Standard member checkbaiter
    By God's Grace
    30 Oct '16 19:25
    Originally posted by mchill
    As many of you know, school districts all over the country are mired in a caste system. Schools in affluent areas are better financed due to the availability of more tax funds in that district. As a result, these students are better educated, are more likely to meet the scholastic requirements for college. The opposite is true for the poorer areas, these und ...[text shortened]... countries allocate educational resources to their school this way, why not the USA? Any thoughts
    I don't think it would change anything. This is typical liberal mentality.
    Why not attack the root of the problem?
    I would be more interested in that.
    Many say the poor are poor and stay that way is because they don't produce, or don't want to better themselves.
    What say you?
  11. 30 Oct '16 19:53
    Originally posted by checkbaiter
    I don't think it would change anything. This is typical liberal mentality.
    Why not attack the root of the problem?
    I would be more interested in that.
    Many say the poor are poor and stay that way is because they don't produce, or don't want to better themselves.
    What say you?
    You don't understand the liberal mentality.

    They think that the answer to all the worlds problems is to redistribute wealth which should, in theory, solve any problem presented.
  12. Subscriber mchill
    cryptogram
    30 Oct '16 20:27 / 6 edits
    Originally posted by checkbaiter
    I don't think it would change anything. This is typical liberal mentality.
    Why not attack the root of the problem?
    I would be more interested in that.
    Many say the poor are poor and stay that way is because they don't produce, or don't want to better themselves.
    What say you?
    This is typical liberal mentality.
    Many say the poor are poor and stay that way is because they don't produce, or don't want to better themselves. What say you?



    Oh, I get it. The poor are poor because they want to be right?

    So this means Howard Schultz, CEO of Starbucks, was just lucky when he turned a couple of back alley coffee shops in Seattle into one of the most successful companies in the world, because he was born in a poor neighborhood in New York?

    or

    John Paul DeJoria, who used to be a homeless man was just lucky when he began selling his hair products to beauty shops, and is now a billionaire.

    or

    Some middle class kid named Obama became a respected legal scholar, and made law review at Harvard Law School (do you really think lazy people accomplish this?)

    Typical "nose in the air" conservative thinking!
  13. 30 Oct '16 20:49
    Originally posted by checkbaiter
    I don't think it would change anything. This is typical liberal mentality.
    Why not attack the root of the problem?
    I would be more interested in that.
    Many say the poor are poor and stay that way is because they don't produce, or don't want to better themselves.
    What say you?
    Would you say that Norwegians are intrinsically less likely than Americans to not "want to better themselves"?
  14. 30 Oct '16 20:56
    Originally posted by whodey
    The only hope for equality is to take everyone's money and show them how it should be spent.

    Naturally, right wingers will scream the typical "Constitutional rights", blah, blah, blah.

    What they don't realize is though, it is that very Constitution that gives them the freedom to improve their personal lot in life which breeds injustice. Therefore, they must be crushed!
    If I read between the lines correctly you will be voting Trump on Nov. 8. What is your take on Trump's proposed abolition and/or amendment of several of the constitution's articles?
  15. Standard member vivify
    rain
    30 Oct '16 21:11
    Originally posted by Suzianne
    And the university system in the US still gets adequate funding, even though there are private universities.
    I'm not sure university funding (I assume you meaning government funding) is the reason why U.S. universities get "adequate" funding. There's also the fact that U.S. universities are the most expensive in the world; that's in addition to hordes of cash made off of unpaid student athletes.