O'Reilly's talking points from Tuesday night about white privilege and the struggle for blacks to assimilate:
O'Reilly is nothing more than the TV version of Limbaugh.
Not sure about Chicago but here in Indiana - IPS schools receive roughly 40% more per student in state funding than suburban schools. Last I heard, several of the suburban schools had joined together and filed suit against the state regarding their formula. BTW, IPS schools have been receiving these extra funds for 30+ years and their drop out rates and test scores are basically flat and in some cases have dropped. Meanwhile suburban schools results are improving while receiving less state funding because of the 1% property tax cap that was enacted a few years ago.
Falling for your nonsense again, here I go.
Without an in-depth analysis of spending and income, you can't come up with an adequate number. Nor is the number going to be the same in every community. In fact, it may well be that the answer is better management and not more money. BUT - regardless of the reason, there are some schools (largely in low-income areas - such as inner city and Native American reservations) that are not providing their students with the same level of opportunity as even mid-level schools in predominantly middle class, "white" communities.
Yes, because the problem is only in Chicago. This whole discussion has been entirely about Chicago and not the entire country or the educational system as a whole. I used Chicago as an example primarily because I spend a fair amount of time there and am somewhat familiar with its issues.
It may matter to people like you, but it doesn't matter to me. I don't care if it is the Socialist Party of Libertarian Horse Lovers that's in charge - the problems remain and need to be addressed. There are probably multiple ways to solve the problems effectively, but all of them require cooperation between political parties (which, as we know, is not going to happen as long as both parties are filled with petulant children).
My wife currently teaches at a Title I school in Indy. She has taught at non Title I schools in the past including a private school. She will tell you that the #1 difference in the student's performance is parenting. In fact, the low income school she teaches at now has far more computers, classroom aids, virtual whiteboards, and etc than the other school she's taught at. The private school she once taught at had virtually no modern technology and 30 kids in a class - yet those kids scored extremely high on statewide testing.
I apologize - I'm not communicating my point well.
You jumped into this conversation talking about budgets and $ spent per student - rural vs. suburbs. You clearly don't know anything about public education and how schools are funded. Now you're just throwing out generalities and suppositions without any findings of fact. In other words - you're just talking out your a$$.
There's no reason to be insulting, I'm trying to be civil.
Did you even read that professor's "paper"? What did you do - google school funding and found this pile of steaming crap? It's nothing but theory and he even states that in his conclusion. His "findings" aren't findings at all and he even states that. His statements are straight out of the teacher union playbook when schools are attempting to raise taxes. I know because I read all this crap a couple of years ago when our community voted down a school referendum. All we heard was doom and gloom - how our home values were going to go down; how our school's test scores were going to go down; how it benefits the community to spend more money on schools; and etc. Our community saw right thru the bs and overwhelmingly voted the referendum down. Our home values are just fine and we're actually in the middle of a housing boom of sorts right now. Our test scores have never been higher.
This I agree with. I would have agreed with this from the beginning.
