Public education in Texas faces massive cuts

[GLW]

"Why are the worst parts of any city the areas that get the most Gov't aid?"

Got to love it when people confuse CORRELATION with CAUSATION.

Let's see...

There is more ice cream sold when the most people have heat strokes.

Ergo, ice cream sales cause heat strokes....

Or maybe, just maybe, you sell more ice cream when it is hot and you have more heat strokes when it is hot...

Areas that are eligible for government aid have to show need and the more need they show, the more aid they get. (With the exception of areas where graft and craft allow a political machine to apportion funds inappropriately).

[Syn7]

Maybe if they spent less on the military and more on education, we'd be making some progress instead of being in a decline. Yeah, I said it.

haha i was gonna say that, but you beat me to it...

i also like the higher premiums for smokers... i think obesity should be in there too... if i do everything right and another guy does everything wrong we shouldnt have to pay the same prices... i hate how some feel they can smoke and live off trans fat and feel that everyone else should foot the bill for the massive amount of medical resources they will FOR SURE be using up... it just isnt right...

insurance is tricky tho, they are all such misers with paying people out... most companies pay bonus to those who find way to not pay... or pay less...

[YouKnowWho]

As to Texas, we are gaining people daily.

Not someone like me. I have lived in Texas for 37 years. I'm so happy that I'm out of that "RED" state.

Texas needs more rednecks. This policy will help Texas to achieve that goal.

http://img37.imageshack.us/img37/3715/redneck.png

[Syn7]

More good points.

When you create a welfare class, they are at least smart enough to figure out education means nothing to them. They are taken care of no matter if they drop out in 6th grade or become class Valedictorian. Why work hard when you have zero motivation to?

thats just stupid blue... thats like saying if crack was legal all the sudden there would be millions of crackheads...

nobody wants to live off welfare... given the opportunity to sit on welfare till they die poor or going to school and doing something worthwhile that you enjoy, do you really think so many would choose welfare???

maybe a good chunk of welfare recipients are there because their education system failed them a long time ago... failed to recognize any number of issues that lead to failure and/or drop-out...

find me one class valedictorian that said they were gonna quit college to be on welfare cause its easier... show me ONE...

our kids should be our number one priority, over everything, even security...

[Syn7]

If they are not content to live that way, why do they refuse to change? It was on full display during Katrina. You have 3 generations deep of welfare recipients who had no idea what to do when the Gov't checks didn't show up. In those areas it's often looked down upon to succeed in school. Does the term 'Uncle Tom' mean anything to you? I was 'bussed' in junior high (7th-8th grade) to a bad part of town. We actually had 2 guys who DROVE to that school! All they did was show up, cut up in class, and try and pick up girls years younger than them. And the kids from that part of town looked up to them!

There is ZERO reason to fail in this country. We have free lunches/breakfasts in school, English as a Second Language for those who don't speak English, counselors, and tons of grants/programs for low income kids to go to college. Look at the dropout rates in the parts of town where there is little to no Gov't money going into it vs the parts of town where Gov't money flows like water. Why are the failing schools always in the districts that receive the most Gov't aid? If Gov't money is the solution, then then East LA schools should be outperforming Beverly Hills schools.

Why are the worst parts of any city the areas that get the most Gov't aid?

People wouldn't live in ghettoes if we didn't pay them to.

you know nothing about what its like to grow up poor... your last phrase shows just how much of a handle you really have on this... if you really think the answer is in the numbers you will never get it... its like you arent even willing to try to look at things from another perspective...

[mooyingmantis]

GLW and BJJ,
You both seem to understand the educational system, its strengths, weaknesses and dilemmas. Good to see!

All,
Private schools are not necessarily the answer. Yes, they can offer an excellent program. However, it is still necessary for the STUDENT to take the initiative to absorb what is taught. And it is still necessary for the PARENTS to ensure that the student attends school, does their homework and offers some means of after school help.

My daughter went to a private Christian school during part of elementary schooland all of junior high school. Then she graduated from an excellent high school in an affluent community. She excelled to the point that she was in the top 50,000 students in the US the year she graduated.

However, the private Christian school was not immune to drugs or teen pregnancy. And some of the students with whom she graduated high school in the affluent community did not similarly apply themselves. Now they are jobless and donate plasma on a weekly basis where I work, because they have no other source of income.

No matter how much money is thrown into the educational system, success in education begins with a student interested in learning and parents who demand excellence of their children.

Further, the success of students in other countries only STARTS with the public school systems. Students in Japan, for example, spend hours after school in tutoring programs. Their parents must provide this so their children will pass the entrance exams necessary to be permitted to attend high school. Do not pass the entrance exams and your education ends at middle school! It is also interesting to note that Japan has one of the highest incidences of teen suicide due to the extreme pressure placed on students to excel. Is this what we really want for our children?

[YouKnowWho]

This was what I had experienced in my grad school and junior high back in Taiwan.

- The teacher would hit me N times on my hand. N = 100 - my score.
- I had never went to bed before 2 am.
- There was not a single day that I didn't have exam.

I still have nightmare even today that I have not prepared enough for my next exam.

[curenado]

I doubt American children will have to worry about that soon, if ever.

I think both public and private schools should be operating to meet the needs of the individuals they are there to serve. I can't agree that students moving into private schools is hurting public school funding since students funding is paid for head by head and students needs are to be included in that. If student B moves, student A's money is still at that school.

I do agree it is in the parents and students - first and foremost, but upholding the educational environment and keeping it quality, competative and class is the school's primary function and both parties have to be functional for it to work well.

This was a little strange:
<<nobody wants to live off welfare... given the opportunity to sit on welfare till they die poor or going to school and doing something worthwhile that you enjoy, do you really think so many would choose welfare???>>

Actually and in fact they do. They make it a career. Hard to believe that argument was even tried.
Welfare and disability are two of the greatest man spirit killers that there are. Many people actually do stop right where they can and do not esteem upward mobility or personal effort at all.

The individuals in any environment that do wish to are the reason for the effort, because they are the only ones who can really benefit much from it.

[BJJ-Blue]

That being said, have you thought that maybe the funding is an attempt to keep the system from collapsing altogether, or have you thought that certain disadvantaged areas (ie parents who grew up poor, as it is scientifically proven that having a wealthy or even middle class family background gives you a disproportionate advantage) might have to work twice as hard as their better off peers?

So what if you have to work harder. Is hard work suddenly a bad thing? Sometimes people who are at a disadvantage who must work harder actually achieve the highest success. Look at Tom Dempsey, he was born physically handicapped (only half a foot) and he yet became a place kicker in the NFL and still holds the record for longest field goal in a regular season game.

I grew up poor, and I can say firsthand I was almost sucked in to permanent poverty. You have no support structure, the city is concerned with taking care of its wealthy and middle class, and the culture around you is one of "it sucks, deal with it, because the opportunities just aren't there". I still have no support structure in my life, so if I fail, everything I worked for goes down with me.

And despite those disadvantages you became a comssioned offiicer in our armed forces. You are a succes story. So since you did it, why do we have so many who refuse to?

The federal funding is enough to keep those schools afloat. As opposed to nicer schools with laptops at every desk, that funding keeps teachers there and the basic supplies running. You are confusing causation with attempts to keep the system from collapsing entirely.

Funding isn't the problem, it is the lack of parental involvement.

There was an Assistant Principal at that school, Mr Washington. He handled the referrals. When a teacher wrote a referral it was sent to him and he called the student in to discuss the incident and assess punishment. The punishment ranged from 'Verbal Discisssion' to 'Suspension', and he would check the appropriate box. Washingtom was well known for falling asleep during the discussions. The students who were sent to him alot figured out you could often drag along the discussion and wait for him to pass out. Then they would check the 'Verbal Warning' box and leave. I was sent to him for my first (and only) referral for talking in class. He decided I needed a suspension. My mother flipped out, as a was a straight A student with zero discipline problems. She contacted the Administration and they found out Washington was on so many medications for his health it caused adverse aide effects like falling asleep. He had basically been 'dumped' at the East Side school until he reached retirement. Washington was forced into early retirement that year. But the point is he had been there for years before I got there and no one had even bothered to complain nor had anyone even bothered to see if he competant to do his job until one of the 'white boys' who was bussed in had parents who gave a ****.

[BJJ-Blue]

"Why are the worst parts of any city the areas that get the most Gov't aid?"

Got to love it when people confuse CORRELATION with CAUSATION.

Nice try. I just want an explanation. Liberals say that 'investing' in poor areas is the answer, yet the more money we throw at the problem, the worse it gets. If I throw gasoline on a fire to put it out and the fire just gets worse, I'd be an idiot to say it didn't work because I didn't use enough gasoline.

Areas that are eligible for government aid have to show need and the more need they show, the more aid they get. (With the exception of areas where graft and craft allow a political machine to apportion funds inappropriately).

True. But of course that means that if an area receiving aid actually gets worse, they get more Federal money. So failure is rewarded.

i hate how some feel they can smoke and live off trans fat and feel that everyone else should foot the bill for the massive amount of medical resources they will FOR SURE be using up... it just isnt right...

But yet you feel if someone drops out of school, gets pregnant as a teenager, and commits crimes they should be able to live off others via welfare.

thats just stupid blue... thats like saying if crack was legal all the sudden there would be millions of crackheads...

You liberals say if guns weren't legal we would have less guns. So which way is it?

nobody wants to live off welfare... given the opportunity to sit on welfare till they die poor or going to school and doing something worthwhile that you enjoy, do you really think so many would choose welfare???

maybe a good chunk of welfare recipients are there because their education system failed them a long time ago... failed to recognize any number of issues that lead to failure and/or drop-out...

So explain how welfare is now 3 or 4 generations deep in some families. Are the older ones too stupid to have figured out getting a good education and making good choices is a way out or do they just not care if their kids plan to live off welfare? It has to be one or the other.

find me one class valedictorian that said they were gonna quit college to be on welfare cause its easier... show me ONE...

You completely missed my point.

[GLW]

“Nice try. I just want an explanation. Liberals say that 'investing' in poor areas is the answer, yet the more money we throw at the problem, the worse it gets. If I throw gasoline on a fire to put it out and the fire just gets worse, I'd be an idiot to say it didn't work because I didn't use enough gasoline.”
Ok…now you are exhibiting a total lack of logic. You are equating addressing a REAL social problem with a KNOWN TO BE TOO SMALL amount of resources – then being SURPRISED when you get less than optimum results… and THEN, due to doing the right idea but doing it in a doomed to fail half-a$$ed manner as PROOF that any action is futile.
Sorry, but your inability to see that there are more inputs into this system than money in – perfect neighborhoods and schools out – would be laughable if it weren’t so typical.
Did you consider the effect of changes in economics, outside forces, growth in population, maybe even that those who benefited from said programs did well…and LEFT the area so that those left are still in need? And if that is possible, would you say that the expenditure of the money that allowed the ones who benefited to move to a better area as WASTED. (There are a lot of instances where people do well and leave their old neighborhoods…and most NEVER consider giving back to the area they left so others can do the same).
You would not last a month in a social workers job. First, you would have to learn to care about others as much as you do your own wallet. Second, you would have to learn that just about everyone lives the best life they know how to live…and to walk in with a “YOU people attitude is at once insulting AND builds a wall you have to tear down first to do any real work and get any real change.


“True. But of course that means that if an area receiving aid actually gets worse, they get more Federal money. So failure is rewarded.”


And you assume that the money was enough to actually make a difference. Sort of like having a car with a bad battery. So you look at your bank account and you don’t have enough money for a new or even a reliable used battery. But you DO have the money for a cheap charger. So you buy the charger and it gets you to the point where you can start the car in the morning…but you may end up needing a jump at the end of the day just to get home. Now, you are having the same problem but you are ****ed that you spent the money….but you KNEW that you were not spending enough and were NOT spending it correctly in the first place.

The people in the communities are not the ones who want to fail. The people in the city, county, state, and federal government who feather their nest this way are the ones to look at. This is no different than the people who do exactly the same thing with military contracts. (Good example is an old description of the requirements for a simple ashtray for the military). It just happens that the military is scrutinized less and is vilified less for this very typical problem of graft than the social services.

Want to clean it all up, start with BOTH – Military and social spending. If you want to rail against the graft – do both or you are just a right wing tool.

[curenado]

<<Second, you would have to learn that just about everyone lives the best life they know how to live…and to walk in with a “YOU people attitude is at once insulting AND builds a wall you have to tear down first to do any real work and get any real change.>>

I'm curious - if that is true, why then over the last 30 years has the only change been continually degenerative?
There is more than one philosophy in human services. Yours seems to come from the incumbent school of thought - that by giving people whatever they want for free without expectation of even moral merit, let alone practical viability or rehabilitative effort will improve their condition and future as well as include and validate them in society.
But the actual results have been fatually the opposite. The numbers for college entry and graduation have not really improved much but crime has become exponentially worse. In thirty years no substantive "victory garden" or across the board adult living skills or quality of life movements have been implemented.

So I think you are being a little rough with the guy. Trying to defend the few viables (because it does seem like you are) and demonstrate what does work about the "spoiled dependent" philosophy does come down to the individuals. Only a small % of individuals actually benefit from all America has to offer beyond free maintenance care.

I see your arguments, but only in a perspective towards individuals. When you generalize the issue it obscures your defense of the viables who do benefit - anybody can understand the "leg up" thing in America because that is how it should work. How it should and how it ends up going though is often very different.

[BJJ-Blue]

Ok…now you are exhibiting a total lack of logic. You are equating addressing a REAL social problem with a KNOWN TO BE TOO SMALL amount of resources – then being SURPRISED when you get less than optimum results… and THEN, due to doing the right idea but doing it in a doomed to fail half-a$$ed manner as PROOF that any action is futile.

No, I'm looking at results and seeing that despite the money we throw at poor areas, the problem has only grown.

Detroit before the War on Poverty:




Detroit after the War on Poverty:

Sorry, but your inability to see that there are more inputs into this system than money in – perfect neighborhoods and schools out – would be laughable if it weren’t so typical.

Are you even listening to me?

I'm the one blaming other factors, such as lack of parental involvement in education. It's the liberals who always say money is the solution. There is a reason why most Americans know who Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson are, and have no idea who Jessie Lee Peterson and Ken Hamblin are. Guess which 2 demand money to fix problems, and which 2 advocate things like personal responsibility and making good choices as the solution?

You would not last a month in a social workers job. First, you would have to learn to care about others as much as you do your own wallet. Second, you would have to learn that just about everyone lives the best life they know how to live

I agree I wouldn't. And it's because I'm too honest. Id tell poor people to do things like take full advantage of a free education, respect teachers, don't have sex outside of marriage, and report crime in your communites. Now the kids in those areas have little respect for teachers (there is a reason few teachers want to work in inner cities), are told premartial sex is ok if you just use protection, and reporting crime gets you called a snitch (or worse).

Look at conservatism: What could be better than telling a poor person, 'You can't change how you started off, but you have so many tools you can use to change how you will end up'. We believe this country still is the Land of Opportunity, not the land of no hope. We also believe that human beings are so great we can achieve even more than we can imagine if we just put our minds to it and work hard. It's the liberals who say 'Life is unfair. Some people are just doomed to failure because of where they were born or the color of their skin.'

And no they don't live the best life they know how. Some do, of course. But how do explain women having 3 kids by 3 different guys before they are old enough to drink? They knew how to live better than that, they chose not to. How do explain women not choosing to look for a good, decent man who will provide for and take care of his children but instead relying on the Gov't to do it and just sleeping around with losers?

And you assume that the money was enough to actually make a difference.

We spent $620 BILLION in 2005 alone. How much is enough?

The people in the communities are not the ones who want to fail.

Want to clean it all up, start with BOTH – Military and social spending. If you want to rail against the graft – do both or you are just a right wing tool.

Some do, or they at least accept it. If you can't at least admit that, the discussion is pointless.

And I'm not railing against graft, I'm comparing Reagan's success in ending the Cold War via the solution he proposed to it, and the liberals failure to win the War on Poverty via the solutions they proposed, despite the trillions of dollars thrown at for 3+ generations.

[MasterKiller]

don't have sex outside of marriage.

Because that's exactly what you did, right...?

[curenado]

Because that's exactly what you did, right...?

Maybe marriage is a spiritual and moral choice but male regard for preventing pregnancy occurence and female control to prevent having more babies can be practiced by anyone.
If those babies did not have a substantial paycheck coming with them, they would not be born in such numbers. If they did not get a check per baby, you would be seeing poor people practicing birth control religiously.