Nazi Homeschool in Ohio: something for Gauleiter Ron DeSantis to explore

[Jimmy Higgins]

The money was spent on the students--and did nothing. Likewise, moving students into better schools does nothing--it's not the schools!

Really - no student's life was improved at all? Do you have any actual evidence to support your claim that nothing was accomplished or is just another example of wishful thinking on your part?

Wait, spending $1 billion didn't erase the consequences of hundreds of years of neglect and abuse? I guess we should just stop trying.

When you spend $1B and produce no detectable result you should realize you're barking up the wrong tree.

I'm reminded of the paper I wrote in college on Canadian aboriginal self-autonomy. And one of the apparent issues that occurred was that throwing money at the problem didn't solve it. It didn't mean the money wasn't needed, but there were severe infrastructional deficiencies that impeded overall improvements that needed to be addressed as well. That billion dollars was the start, not the finish.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Citation needed. I don’t believe that you have evidence that money spent on city schools to make them as well funded, per student, normalized for current level of student “does nothing.”

You ignored it before.

And even if you actually need more to bring them to equal that doesn't mean that you would expect no effect from a major increase in funding.

It's anathema to the left to recognize that there are differences in students that school can't fix but that doesn't make the inconvenient reality go away.

That's just wrong and reads as someone that is so disconnected from society and human beings. Your post is bordering on eugenics.

The trouble is if you have a lot of students that have issues stemming from self-perpetuating poverty cycles. That isn't as easy to fix in the classroom, because it is environmental. The instability, the stress, the hunger, the poisoning of lead in the air from poor housing negatively impact a child's capacity. So no, additional spending in the school system won't address that issue, but it sure the heck doesn't mean that spending wasn't necessary in the first place.

There are numerous deficiencies that need to be addressed. And fixing a problem that stems from centuries of neglect (at best) isn't something that gets fixed by spending $1 billion.

 

[Politesse]

What billion dollar investment are we even talking about?

 

[Loren Pechtel]

It's anathema to the left to recognize that there are differences in students that school can't fix but that doesn't make the inconvenient reality go away.

On the contrary, The Left (I need that CHILL font) readily recognizes that there are differences in students - and that they all benefit from not being abandoned. We don’t expect them to come out equal, but we expect to give them all the best outcome we can, unlike those who say the whole school should be left to rot.

No. You're assuming equal results are to be expected and unequal results are proof the schools are doing things wrong. It's the same thing as disparate impact = discrimination.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Citation needed. I don’t believe that you have evidence that money spent on city schools to make them as well funded, per student, normalized for current level of student “does nothing.”

You ignored it before.

And even if you actually need more to bring them to equal that doesn't mean that you would expect no effect from a major increase in funding.

It's anathema to the left to recognize that there are differences in students that school can't fix but that doesn't make the inconvenient reality go away.

That's just wrong and reads as someone that is so disconnected from society and human beings. Your post is bordering on eugenics.

Eugenics is the idea that they shouldn't be allowed to reproduce. I'm simply recognizing that there are differences.

The trouble is if you have a lot of students that have issues stemming from self-perpetuating poverty cycles. That isn't as easy to fix in the classroom, because it is environmental. The instability, the stress, the hunger, the poisoning of lead in the air from poor housing negatively impact a child's capacity. So no, additional spending in the school system won't address that issue, but it sure the heck doesn't mean that spending wasn't necessary in the first place.

There are numerous deficiencies that need to be addressed. And fixing a problem that stems from centuries of neglect (at best) isn't something that gets fixed by spending $1 billion.

You're right that it's the environment, but school spending can't fix the environment. It doesn't matter how much you throw at the wrong issue, you won't fix it unless you deal with the real issue. And that's a very thorny problem that doesn't have a convenient scapegoat so nothing gets done.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

What billion dollar investment are we even talking about?

IIRC it was Kentucky. A judge tried to fix the schools and ended up doing nothing but wasting $1B and giving us evidence that approach doesn't work.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Citation needed. I don’t believe that you have evidence that money spent on city schools to make them as well funded, per student, normalized for current level of student “does nothing.”

You ignored it before.

And even if you actually need more to bring them to equal that doesn't mean that you would expect no effect from a major increase in funding.

It's anathema to the left to recognize that there are differences in students that school can't fix but that doesn't make the inconvenient reality go away.

That's just wrong and reads as someone that is so disconnected from society and human beings. Your post is bordering on eugenics.

Eugenics is the idea that they shouldn't be allowed to reproduce. I'm simply recognizing that there are differences.

You are making hair splitting distinctions there.

The trouble is if you have a lot of students that have issues stemming from self-perpetuating poverty cycles. That isn't as easy to fix in the classroom, because it is environmental. The instability, the stress, the hunger, the poisoning of lead in the air from poor housing negatively impact a child's capacity. So no, additional spending in the school system won't address that issue, but it sure the heck doesn't mean that spending wasn't necessary in the first place.

There are numerous deficiencies that need to be addressed. And fixing a problem that stems from centuries of neglect (at best) isn't something that gets fixed by spending $1 billion.

You're right that it's the environment, but school spending can't fix the environment. It doesn't matter how much you throw at the wrong issue, you won't fix it unless you deal with the real issue. And that's a very thorny problem that doesn't have a convenient scapegoat so nothing gets done.

School spending is one of the things that needs the money! You keep looking at this the wrong way. The investment won't work unless the entire system is addressed. But that doesn't mean the schools didn't need the support. The thorny problem really relates to the indifference and willful ignorance to the abandonment of the Inner City. They are hungry, poisoned with lead, over incarcerated, and in an environment that is a skeleton of what those neighborhoods used to be. Some want to blame "culture" for that shit. And while "culture" might have some influence, it isn't the culture you think it is. The banks left in the 60s, and the others followed the white folk who moved to the suburbs... where blacks weren't welcome.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

What billion dollar investment are we even talking about?

IIRC it was Kentucky. A judge tried to fix the schools and ended up doing nothing but wasting $1B and giving us evidence that approach doesn't work.

Link? I've been trying to find it, I thought it was Baltimore. All I can find are generalizations of money being ordered into some systems in the US.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

ABSOLUTELY throwing money at it can help significantly. This is well demonstrated.

Our department at work has “adopted” a local school with lower income students to act as volunteer parents. We are on-call whenever they need a volunteer to help in a classroom (It’s clay day and we need someone to roll out clay, it’s art day and we need someone to mix paste) because the low income parents can’t take the day off work. We are on-call whenever they want a better something for the kids (we’re doing a school play, can you make us a set?) because the parents don’t have the income to have a gang of power-tool-wielding contruction who buy the wood and paint ourselves. We are on call for the read-aloud exercises, because the parents working 2 jobs don’t have time to listen to their kids read aloud every night, so we coe into the school and have the kids read to us in the hall. We provide rides if necessary, we provide coaches for the robot programs (and we provide the robots and take them to competitions).

You're talking about things to help parents who care, just don't have the time.

The inner city schools are bad because the parents don't care.

Don't care? Nothing like the judgmental conclusion by LP on people he doesn't know. There are parents in the inner-city that don't care. There are parents that do care but lack the skills to help. There are parents that do care but lack the time to help. There are single parents that are so over their head. Poverty creates several different reasons for students not to do as well. Hunger, unstable housing situation, unstable home situation, etc...

We do make arguments elsewhere for dealing with poverty, but often you just handwave it away, blah blah disparate outcomes, blah blah not the banks fault they abandoned inner city to invest in the suburbs where no one lived yet, blah blah.

Lighten up, Jimbo. It's a lot easier to take Loren's position. Could be Loren grew up in one of those schools where parents didn't care, including his.