I would first, before I read the article, say that correlation does not necessitate causation.

Now I will read the article to see if that was the case.

I am going to hold to my statement that correlation does not necessitate causation and warn that the thought that seems to be presented, that if they were more wealthy they would necessarily do better, is dangerous if acted upon singularly.

There are multiple factors causing this situation, if they try to address it simply with discrimination of those in poverty in hopes to help them become wealthier in order to make the children perform better in school, I fear they will end up just as they diagnosed the ill effect of "No Child Left Behind".

" the thought that seems to be presented, that if they were more wealthy they would necessarily do better, is dangerous if acted upon singularly."

Absolutely! It's not the financial class, but the trappings and attitudes that come with it. Worth looking at, but we need to be careful of how we approach it. The "culture of poverty" theory made famous by Ruby Payne and common in school professional-development sessions across the country, is at least partly bunk. It offers some good stuff, but it also creates monolithic images and approaches to problems that are more discrete than that, or in populations whose members are more discrete than that. (Some DR denizens will love this monolith-making, given their own tendencies toward such in political discourse.)

The correlation has been abundantly documented, notably by the famous Coleman Report in 1966. New research by Sean F. Reardon of Stanford University traces the achievement gap between children from high- and low-income families over the last 50 years and finds that it now far exceeds the gap between white and black students.

Amazing the author has figured out that our open boarder policies have added a whole new under class of non-white, non-black poor. I'm surprised they didn't channel Margaret Sanger.

Dire poverty drives this mother back again to the factory (no intelligent person will say she goes willingly). Margaret Sanger

The most serious charge that can be brought against modern “benevolence” is that it encourages the perpetuation of defectives, delinquents and dependents. These are the most dangerous elements in the world community, the most devastating curse on human progress and expression. Margaret Sanger

The age old question Nature or Nurture. I for one, believe in the spirit of the human being and think that any child given the right support can achieve great things. This means a home with concerned and involved parents.

The Occupy movement would remind us that education also leads to poverty due to the crippling student loans that many are forced to adopt in hopeless efforts to improve their meager lives.

"given the right support can achieve great things. This means a home with concerned and involved parents."

Which means:

• It's not about the money; it's about the engagement.
• Lots of poor people have disengaged parents; lots of middle-class and wealthy people have disengaged parents.
• People who aren't taught problem-solving won't rise above the limitations into which they are born.
• People of wealth or of the middle-class can fuck up their kids just as well as people of poverty can.

(I'm using the "people of..." phrases for shorthand. I don't like thinking of people in such categories.)

My principal would tell me that the kid from a poor family, with an alcoholic abusive father and a drug-addict, drug-dealing felon brother who overcame these to become a responsible, respectable, self-directed student and later a college graduate was an exception. Well, he is. But his existence shows that people with these problems don't have to perpetuate the ills. What I want to know is where this lad found the wherewithal to rise up. He did not have "the right support" from his parents.

"It's not about the money; it's about the engagement"

You know better than to agree to an either/or like that.

"Lots of poor people have disengaged parents; lots of middle-class and wealthy people have disengaged parents....

People of wealth or of the middle-class can fuck up their kids just as well as people of poverty can."

Just as well? Sure. Just as easily? I don't think so.

Just as well? Sure. Just as easily? I don't think so.

#7 | Posted by Hagbard_Celine at 2011-12-13 04:44 PM | Reply | Flag:

I do. Money has a keen tendency to "fuck up" (as prag put it) things pretty quickly and pretty seriously.

Schools are funded by local property taxes.

Local property taxes generate more revenue when homes cost more.

This system will naturally produce lower quality schools in areas with lower property values.

Local property taxes generate more revenue when homes cost more.

Untrue. Local property taxes generate more revenue when the county appraises your property value at whatever they want to.

Please cite an example of where real property prices actually determine taxable revenue. One where the taxes have gone down proportionately to the current drop in real estate values would be nice.

Let me help my uninformed liberal friend

Definition of 'Assessed Value'
The dollar value assigned to a property for purposes of measuring applicable taxes. Assessed valuation is used to determine the value of a residence for tax purposes and takes comparable home sales and inspections into consideration. It is the price placed on a home by the corresponding government municipality to calculate property taxes. In general, this value tends to be lower than the appraisal fair market value of a property.

#10 | Posted by goatman

Good to see you back

Local property taxes generate more revenue when the county appraises your property value at whatever they want to.

That doesn't change anything.
Sure, the assessed value is almost always lower than the market value.
Still, a home with a market value of $1,000,000 is going to have a higher assessed value than a home with a market value of $100,000.

Are you really this intent on denying there are nicer public schools in wealthier neighborhoods?

Are you really this intent on denying there are nicer public schools in wealthier neighborhoods?

???

Wow. bOoB logic spreads.

No, I am simply pointing out the truth on property taxes. How the hell did you come up with your bizarre leap of logic?

Schools are funded by local property taxes.
Local property taxes generate more revenue when homes cost more.
This system will naturally produce lower quality schools in areas with lower property values.

#9 | POSTED BY SNOOFY

Not in California, most if not all comes from the state, that was partly what Prop13 was about (see Serrano vs. Priest)

Not in California, most if not all comes from the state, that was partly what Prop13 was about

In Texas the Robin Hood law gave wrongly took money from the richer districts and gave to the poorer ones.