McAuliffe Plan: Giving Parents a ‘Choice’ Leads to ‘Segregation’
dailywire.com
dailywire.com
"The Soviet man was to be selfless, learned, healthy, muscular, and enthusiastic in spreading the socialist Revolution. Adherence to Marxism–Leninism, and individual behavior consistent with that philosophy's prescriptions, were among the crucial traits expected of the New Soviet man, which required intellectualism and hard discipline.[6] He was not driven by crude impulses of nature but by conscious self-mastery, a belief that required the rejection of both innate personality and the unconscious, which Soviet psychologists therefore rejected.[7]
He treated public property with respect, as if it were his own.[8] He also has lost any nationalist sentiments, being Soviet rather than Russian, Ukrainian, Belarusian, or any of the many other nationalities found in the USSR.[9]
His work required exertion and austerity, to show the new man triumphing over his base instincts.[10] Alexey Stakhanov's spurious[11][12] record-breaking day in mining coal caused him to be set forth as the exemplar of the "new man" and the members of Stakhanovite movements tried to become Stakhanovites.[13]"
The fact is that integration never really happened in the US. The powers that be used arguments like "parental choice" to stymie progress, and we ended up in a good-enough middle ground where the privileged class could pretend something was done, and racism was over. Meanwhile school funding remains directly tied to standardized test scores, creating virtuous/vicious cycles of classism in virtually every city across the country.
The point of establishing public schools was to break the cycle of only the rich being able to afford a good education. IMO the fact that there is such a thing as good/bad public schools means the system has failed. I'm totally in favor of bussing as much as I am the use of online tools like KhanAcademy and subsidized child care.
Unequal school funding is a common talking point, but, on average, the spending per White/Black/Hispanic/Asian pupil is nearly identical. Black pupils receive 105% as much funding as White, or 101% if adjusted to cost of living in the school district [1].
For those wondering how this is possible, when school funding is tied to property taxes in the district: It's because roughly half of school funding comes from state budgets, and is allocated based on necessity, so school that receive less district funding, get more state funding.
[1] https://www.heritage.org/education/report/the-myth-racial-di...
I'm not going to convince you of anything, I know, but you're not going to convince anyone with decade old articles from a conservative think tank propaganda site.
on average, both Black and Latinx total per pupil expenditures exceed White total per pupil expenditures by $229.53 and $126.15, respectively. This is anticipated due to the strong relationship between race and poverty (Reardon & Owens, 2014) and the increased federal funding targeted toward stu- dents in districts with concentrated poverty (Cascio & Reber, 2013). - https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/23328584198724...
Why would this not be convincing on the narrow question of average education spending per pupil?
Still, I find this to be a superfluous detail in relation to the point I was making. The fact remains that,
> "The authors find that when Black students are increasingly concentrated in separate school districts from White students in the same state, total revenue shifts in a way that disfavors the typical Black student’s district, even after controlling for racial differences in poverty."
which is the point I was referencing. No one needs statistics to be convinced that social status coincides very closely with race in the US. So either 1) there are a series of systemic issues at play responsible for the pattern, or 2) there is something inherent about certain races which determines their social status relative to other races. Given that 2 is the definition of racial bias and racism, 1 must be where we find ourselves.
So I'm curious about this statement. As I wrote elsewhere in this thread, twice as many whites than blacks are in poverty. If social status were almost substitutable for race, how come there are 17M white people in poverty?
https://www.kff.org/other/state-indicator/poverty-rate-by-ra...
Edit. For reference, a nice databook from Pew Research, with income distributions by race in 1970 and 2016, though lacking absolute numbers presentation:
https://www.pewresearch.org/social-trends/2018/07/12/appendi...
At one school my SO saw the whole district being reorganized, subdividing overcrowded or otherwise troubled administrations into new smaller administrations and schools. Community challenges remained though.
You can't let parents choose because they might choose wrongly? If that's your position, how do you feel about the exact same logic being applied to abortion? And if you don't like how that would work out on abortion, maybe it's not good logic here?
The US left sure seems willing to be authoritarian in order to achieve the social ends that they want...
There are twice as many white people in poverty than black people in poverty, even if the rate of poverty is twice as large in the black population compared to the white population. More than 80% of people of either race are not in poverty. Substituting race for poverty is such an intellectually stunted move.
https://www.kff.org/other/state-indicator/poverty-rate-by-ra...