Are private schools immoral
![[Post New]](/jforum/templates/default/images/icon_minipost_new.gif){kind=icon}
Anonymous
Explain republican giving then.... They tend to give more to charity (churches in particular), in part because they feel it is the role of private groups to help the poor and not the government's (I'm not saying they're right, that is just their position). That was the role of religious groups in the past, but has eroded to some degree as people became less religious. Likewise, Republicans and conservatives tend to want to help people they know in their in-group more so than strangers, while Liberals/Democrats are the opposite. Education in this country gets just about as many dollars as defense spending. Its just mostly at the k-12 level, with too much not spent in the classroom itself (40% not spent in classroom https://census.gov/newsroom/press-releases/2017/cb17-97-public-education-finance.html ). k-12 spending 634 billion in 2016 https://nces.ed.gov/fastfacts/display.asp?id=66 Defense spending 585 billion in 2016. https://www.defense.gov/News/Special-Reports/FY16-Budget/ |
Anonymous
| Think about that. Education spending for 13 years for all the children in our nation is about the same as our national defense. |
Anonymous
|
What the MIT researchers found was that conservatives give more to religious organizations, such as their own churches, and liberals more to secular recipients. Conservatives may give more overall, MIT says, but that's because they tend to be richer, so they have more money to give and get a larger tax benefit from giving it. The degree of religious contribution is important, because a 2007 study by Indiana University found that only 10% to 25% of church donations end up being spent on social welfare purposes, of which assistance to the poor is only a subset. In other words, if you think of "giving" as "giving to the poor," a lot of the money donated by conservatives may be missing the target. |
Anonymous
| What do mega churches do with donated cash? |
Anonymous
A two parent household is as white culture as sushi is American . You have to have a debilitating idiocy to think that two people of the opposite sex living under a roof like it's been done for thousands of years in every corner of this planet is quote 'white culture'. It appears that whatever good education you received in all your white enclave didn't serve you well - signed a middle aged white woman |
Anonymous
Good thing you were here to move this discussion forward. 
|
Anonymous
Sure any republican or conservative sending their kid/kids to public school is a socialist. F*cking low life hippies sucking of the government tit. |
Anonymous
https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/education/study-suggests-gentrification-has-boosted-integration-in-dc-schools/2017/12/18/f279f450-e43f-11e7-833f-155031558ff4_story.html?hpid=hp_local-news_gentrification-459am%3Ahomepage%2Fstory&utm_term=.21718a48bf82 |
Anonymous
|
Politically, private schools and charter schools and other types of school choice that cause people to abdicate their role in participating in an integrated community ARE problematic because they cause segregation.
There are many reasons why people choose to not participate in their neighborhood schools, ranging from overt racism to class consciousness to covert prejudice to laziness to having a child with special needs to having tried to engage with the neighborhood school and finding your child's needs are not being met. It's more complicated than just saying "anything other than neighborhood schools is immoral." The ideal is that we have a public education system that services everyone equitably and fairly. That said, the social and cultural and economic realities of our country don't support that right now, and liberals want to effect that positive change to make great schools accessible to all. It's not immoral to opt out of your neighborhood if you have a substantive reason to/you tried the neighborhood school/you vocalize that conflict. I did all three. It feels bad. I hate it. But we ultimately moved to a "better neighborhood school" which is the same type of selection that having the money to move affords you. Is it immoral for an educated affluent family to move to Tenleytown to take advantage of a great public school as opposed to choosing to live in Randle Highlands so that your child can "help improve the school?" I'd say no. But the fact that the educational experience at both are so dramatically different yet in the same system is wrong and very troubling. |
Anonymous
|
My children are not community property.
I'm going to give them every (perceived) advantage they can get to better compete with the other 7 billion human beings out there. P |
Anonymous
Here's the deal no matter what opportunity you think you're going to give them , there's 99% chance they'll end up clocking in and out of buildings just like the kids who went to underperforming schools . Go for it |
Anonymous
Nah, the underperforming kids will just sit at home smoking up and living off the dole. |
Anonymous
| People should spend more of their time and money working with their own child to improve the schools and stop whining. A school is only as good as the kids and the families of the kids that attend. Its sad people think they need other people’s children to attend local failed schools to make them better. Look in the mirror, your schools are failing because of you and other people like you. You could eliminate all private and charter schools in the country and you would still have the same underperforming group of kids. Poor and failed schools are due to poor and failed parenting. Go to a private or charter school and the parents spend time with their children and push\help them succeed. |
Anonymous
I have a feeling that if you swapped all the kids/parents from a failing school with all the kids/parents from a successful one, you would see the fortunes of the failing school largely reversed, and the successes of the "good" school end despite not changing funding or staffing at either school. |
Anonymous
|