Honest question for black Democrats

[Beaker]

[quote name='sneaky' date='Sep 3 2005, 03:45 PM']I answer that question by asking what has the Republican Party done for black Americans?[/quote]

The roots of the "I am entitled" mindset.

[quote]At the very least, it seems like the Democrats actually make an effort to reach out to African-Americans. There is a sense of inclusiveness there, and alienation is felt from the GOP. As far as the Republican party is concerned.........most blacks that I know, do not like or trust them.[/quote]

Democrats tell poor blacks what they want to hear...that they are going to get them things. Unions and Democrats have been instilling blacks with the victim mentality for decades. The sad part is that most dont even see they are being played to keep them voting for a party who has done more to hurt them than help them realize they have the power within themselves.

[quote]The Republican party has made no serious attempt to reach out to or become receptive to African-American issues or concerns. Since George Bush has been in office he has yet to sit down and meet with the NAACP or  the Congressional Black Caucus.[/quote]

You mean they have not pandered to the squeaky wheels and placated them by telling them what the want to hear, or given in to unreasonable demands of organizations with faulty agendas.

[quote]Yes he has appointed a couple of blacks to high cabinet posts like Condoleeza Rice and Colin Powell. But those two do not represent the majority of African-Americans or their opinions. [right][post="141442"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post][/right][/quote]

Oh , I get it...he hasnt appointed the RIGHT KINDS of blacks. God forbid he should appoint people who are articulate, educated and qualified for the job. Also ones who could stand as role models for all blacks to show what can be achieved, that education, not skin color is all that really stands in their way of becoming successful in this country.

Call me a racist. I believe that all black people have it within themselves to become whatever they want. They simply have to quit listening to false prophets who portray themselves as "leaders" for blacks and tell them they are entitled to this or that. All they have to do is stay in school and work hard and they can go just as far as any other person.

[Guest steggyD]

Right on, Beaker. This episode in New Orleans should show that welfare and goverment handouts are a form of slavery for all races. Instead of trying to do something for themselves, the poor people sit there and complain, "Where's my government now? Why is there no handout? Why can't someone help me?"

Yet, a tribal group on some island that was hit by the tsunami happened to all head for the highlands, somehow using natural warnings that disaster is heading their way. Did they sit around and wait to blame white people for not helping them out? I bet they would've loved to have a 5 day warning for the tsunami.

[Guest ONYX]

[quote name='Lawman' date='Sep 3 2005, 03:09 PM']To answer the last question first : No, Cincinnati Public School system; oldest child to a single parent (mother) of five on Welfare. Started first job at 16 making $1.50 hour in a butcher shop and have been working since.

Now, to answer the relevance of my post; also see Dred Scott.
In essence, the Republican Party prior to the Civil War were pushing for the Freedom and Civil Rights of African-americans only to be strongly opposed by the Democratic Party, see Robert C. Byrd, Senator (Dem) from West Virginia.   
Democratic presidents from Rooselvet, Franklin D to John F. Kennedy kept the Civil Rights issues on the back burner. JFK wanted to bring the issue to the forefront (as did Truman), probably with his brother Robert as the catalyst. Both of their assinations cut short in their efforts come to fruitation. Now, Lyndon B. Johnson (the engineer of the 1957 Civil Right Acts) acting as President signed into Law on July 26, 1964 Civil Rights Bill; after alot of lobbying and placating of his fellow southerners (Democrats). 

IMO, by the actions of LBJ (signing the Civil Rights Bill), that African-americans blindly believe they have a covenant with the democratic party, when it had been the Republican party that has tried since the outset of the civil war in providing their Freedom and Civil rights. See the revelance.

As for your condenscending cut and past remarks  [/quote]



[color="red"]That is simply ridiculous, one would not only have to be narrow minded to believe that, but also asinine to type it. If you paid attention to any of the posts on this thread, you will notice my initial post where I gave a brief depiction of the history between blacks and the Democratic party. Who were all the leading Republican civil rights leaders and pioneers? As far as JFK and RFK putting the civil rights issue on the back burner....thats bogus. Considering how the culture in America was in the early 1960's. JFK and RFK were pioneers as far as politicians involved with civil rights ere concerned. It was the Kennedey's that sent the national guard down to Alabama to ensure the protection and admission of the first black students to attend the University of Alabama. At that time it was a pretty bold and brave move. Of course we are talking about the 1960's, an era when little black girls were being blown up when they went to church, so JFK and RFK couldn't be too radical with their ideas. They had to convince white America it was wrong to kill black people first off. Then gradually show white America that blacks were human too and deserved the same rights as they did. This wasn't going to happen overnight. So your "back burner" theory is just bullshit.
But your stupidity does not stop there,next you say...... ""IMO, by the actions of LBJ (signing the Civil Rights Bill), that African-americans blindly believe they have a covenant with the democratic party, when it had been the Republican party that has tried since the outset of the civil war in providing their Freedom and Civil rights. See the revelance." ............I find it pretty ironic that any Republican or Bush supporter can accuse anyone of blind loyalty. Once again....who were the major civil rights pioneers in the Republican party......since Abe Lincoln? I don't recall any ground breaking advances or contributions to the "cause" from any Republican president or politician since LBJ. This babble of yours sounds like something you pulled straight out of Rush Limbaugh's ass. So screw you too, you anal dwelling butt puppy.
[/color]

[Guest bengalrick]

[quote name='sneaky' date='Sep 3 2005, 02:07 PM']First off your assumptions are racist by nature. You say "republicans don't believe in hand outs",  the implication is, that blacks seek "hand outs" and it  also implies that black people are lazy. Your reference to the "lower class" is also fucked up. You also say "making laws that involve ones skin color IS RACISM.." the problem I see with most republicans are people who feel this way doesn't understand the origin of these laws or programs. Yes you are correct...making laws that involve ones skin color IS RACISM... this was the case in America from about 1700 to 1964 give or take a year. You have to look at this issue from the beginning. An entire race of people were persecuted and oppressed economically, culturally, and educationally for nearly 300 years. When that happens, it is going to have  social, educational, and economical ramifications from generation to generation. These programs were started to give give minorities a jump start or boost if you will to get them to an equal level playing field. These programs are not perfect but for the most part they have been effective. Blacks have made progress socially, economically, and in education since the Civil Rights Movement era in the 60's. But to imply that blacks have reached the "equal playing level" and no "glass ceilings" exist anymore is absurd.[/quote]

i wasn't implying that all african americans are on welfare... i live in a prodomently white place in kentucky, so all the losers that i see around me personally, are white... i was implying that DEMOCRATS believe that the best way to help people, is to pay them welfare... i think that, while it is a good program on the surface and shouldn't be completely phased out, it needs to be radically changed to make sure people get off of it, and not live on it... don't imply i'm racist, b/c you know this is all spawning from the arguments in the katrina threads and the fact that people are saying they didn't have the money to leave everything (who really does??) and bringing this to be a racist topic and implying (you included) that race is a big reason why people weren't so fast in getting there...

[quote]The thing that disturbs me the most with Republicans is their naive or obnoxious assertions that if you are poor it is because you are not educated. How many unemployed or laid-off people with college degrees or certified skills do you know?  I know a lot. They are both black and white? Is their knowledge paying the bills right now? No. The GOP constant blanket answer is "education", and that education is the "only" key to the progression of the black people is also absurd. Theres a lot of educated white people out here struggling to make it, what makes you think black people wont still struggle as well. Don't get me wrong I am not dismissing the importance of education to minorities, but to say it is the "begin all and end all" and the "root" of the problem is silly. The problem is much deeper than that. Once again the implication is there that if a black person is poor it is because he or she is uneducated. I have a degree, I was poor for over a year when I got laid off. Was I not educated enough? How much education are we talking about here? Do all black people need doctorates and PHD's to make it in America? I guess the thing that bothers me the most about the GOP and their view on race relations is that it is purely disingenuous. George Bush and most Republicans couldn't give a rat's ass about the plight or struggles of black people. (See hurricane Katrina)Its not like its  high on the GOP
" to do" list. As if the list read,...."1) Give tax break for the wealthy.2) Start a war with Iraq. 3) Help black people..." I believe the driving force behind changing these laws is not for the best interest of black people or Americans in general, but the fear or anger that one day some white person somewhere may not get a job or scholarship because God forbid a ....black person got it, because there was a law or program that helped him or her get it. Oh NO!!!! We wouldn't want that now would we? You are absolutely right, making laws that involve ones skin color IS RACISM..and it is a shame because of the past that it is like this. But until every American is truly on a equal playing field and racism in this country has all but dissapered, I suggest you do what generations of blacks had to do in this country......deal with it. The good news is, that it wont hurt nearly as much for you as it did them.
[right][post="141558"][/post][/right][/quote]


i'll get back to you on this paragraph... i'm in a hurry...

[Lawman]

[quote]That is simply ridiculous, one would not only have to be narrow minded to believe that, but also asinine to type it. If you paid attention to any of the posts on this thread, you will notice my initial post where I gave a brief depiction of the history between blacks and the Democratic party. Who were all the leading Republican civil rights leaders and pioneers?[/quote]

Supreme Court Justice John Harlan and the Radical Republican Party came way before Truman, JFK and LBJ.

[quote]As far as JFK and RFK putting the civil rights issue on the back burner....thats bogus. Considering how the culture in America was in the early 1960's. JFK and RFK were pioneers as far as politicians involved with civil rights ere concerned. It was the Kennedey's that sent the national guard down to Alabama to ensure the protection and admission of the first black students to attend the University of Alabama. At that time it was a pretty bold and brave move. Of course we are talking about the 1960's, an era when little black girls were being blown up when they went to church, so JFK and RFK couldn't be too radical with their ideas. They had to convince white America it was wrong to kill black people first off. Then gradually show white America that blacks were human too and deserved the same rights as they did. This wasn't going to happen overnight. So your "back burner" theory is just bullshit.[/quote]

The white Americans they had to convince were the Southern Democratic Senators who constituence were doing the killings.

[quote]But your stupidity does not stop there,next you say...... ""IMO, by the actions of LBJ (signing the Civil Rights Bill), that African-americans blindly believe they have a covenant with the democratic party, when it had been the Republican party that has tried since the outset of the civil war in providing their Freedom and Civil rights. See the revelance." ............I find it pretty ironic that any Republican or Bush supporter can accuse anyone of blind loyalty.
Once again....who were the major civil rights pioneers in the Republican party......since Abe Lincoln? I don't recall any ground breaking advances or contributions to the "cause" from any Republican president or politician since LBJ.[/quote]

see Dred Scott; do you even have a clue as to what I am talking about?
...and Bill Clinton's administration had how many minority cabinet members?
Lesbians don't count.

[quote]This babble of yours sounds like something you pulled straight out of Rush Limbaugh's ass. So screw you too, you anal dwelling butt puppy.[/quote]
Note to self, "never argue with an cuddly wuddly teddy bear, they only bring you down to their level"

[Lawman]

sneaky,

Longest speech in senate:
Longest speech since 1900: Senator Strom Thurmond (D-SC), filibustering the 1957 Civil Rights Act, spoke for 24 hours, 18 minutes.

Do you get the picture I am trying to paint or do you refuse to see what is clearly in front of you.

Do you know what a filibuster is? Seriously,

I have only presented facts.

[Guest ONYX]

[quote name='Lawman' date='Sep 3 2005, 07:33 PM']sneaky,

Longest speech in senate:
Longest speech since 1900: Senator Strom Thurmond (D-SC), filibustering the 1957 Civil Rights Act, spoke for 24 hours, 18 minutes. 

Do you get the picture I am trying to paint or do you refuse to see what is clearly in front of you.

Do you know what a filibuster is? Seriously, 

I have only presented facts.
[right][post="141737"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post][/right][/quote]

[color="red"]Lawnmower Man,

Obviously the picture you are trying to paint is abstract.

Do you know what abstract is? Seriously,

The only facts you attempted to present are either before the Civil War or shortly thereafter. You make mention that Strom Thurmond was a Democrat, so was George Wallace, however JFK and RFK were Democrats as well. So your point is?

You have yet to name any Republican figure within the last century who was a leader or pioneer or benefited the civil rights movement at all. You refuse to recognise that your current president has yet to hold any dialogue with the NAACP or the Black Congressional Caucus or black business owners, or community leaders despite invititations extended to him. And you claim that "blacks have a blind covenant with the Democrats"

Fact is, the reason you cannot name any Republicans who have been involved with the betterment of race relations or civil rights, is because there hasn't been any within the past 100 years.

The Civil Rights Movement started in the mid 1950s when a Republican was in office. What did Eisenhower do in 1957 when a black woman named Rosa Parks was jailed for not giving up her seat to a white person, and a young black reverend by the name of Martin Luther King Jr. launched the Montgomery Bus Boycott? Answer----Nothing. Kennedy did not get inaugurated til January 1961 he was killed less than three years later. It was he and his brother (RFK) that embraced and supported the movement. It was a Democrat who sent the national guard to stop another Democrat from keeping black students out of school. It was a Democrat who sent the national guard to Birmingham to stop the police from hosing blacks with high pressured water, beating them with clubs and sending dogs out to bite them. You claim JFK put "civil rights on the back burner" but, "blacks have a blind covenant with the Democrats"

Do you know what "shut da fuck up" means ? Seriously,
[/color]

[Lawman]

[quote name='sneaky' date='Sep 3 2005, 09:35 PM'][color="red"]Lawnmower Man,

Obviously the picture you are trying to paint is abstract.

Do you know what abstract is?  Seriously,

The only facts you attempted to present  are either before the Civil War or shortly thereafter. You make mention that Strom Thurmond was a Democrat, so was George Wallace, however JFK and RFK were Democrats as well. So your point is?

You have yet to name any Republican figure within the last century who was a  leader or pioneer or benefited the civil rights movement at all. You refuse to recognise that your current president has yet to hold any dialogue with the NAACP or the Black Congressional Caucus or black business owners, or community leaders despite invititations extended to him. And you claim that "blacks have a blind covenant with the Democrats"

Fact is, the reason you cannot name any Republicans who have been involved with the betterment of race relations or civil rights, is because there hasn't been any within the past 100 years.

The Civil Rights Movement started in the mid 1950s when a Republican was in office. What did Eisenhower do in 1957 when a black woman named Rosa Parks was jailed for not giving up her seat to a white person, and a young black reverend by the name of Martin Luther King Jr. launched the Montgomery Bus Boycott? Answer----Nothing. Kennedy did not get  inaugurated til January 1961 he was killed less than three years later. It was he and his brother (RFK) that embraced and supported the movement. It was a Democrat who sent the national guard to stop another Democrat from keeping black students out of school. It was a Democrat who sent the national guard to Birmingham to stop the police from hosing blacks with high pressured water, beating them with clubs and sending dogs out to bite them. You claim JFK put "civil rights on the back burner" but, "blacks have a blind covenant with the Democrats"

Do you know what "shut da fuck up" means ? Seriously,
[/color]
[right][post="141759"][/post][/right][/quote]
First off I acknowledge the achievements of the Kennedy brothers, LBJ and Truman.
[quote]It was a Democrat who sent the national guard to stop another Democrat from keeping black students out of school[/quote]

Get your shit straight.
I guess you were referering to this action by Eisenhower when desegregation of schools began, he sent troops into Little Rock, Arkansas, to assure compliance with the orders of a Federal court; [color="blue"]he also ordered the complete desegregation of the Armed Forces.[/color] phrasing the "There must be no second class citizens in this country,"
[quote]Fact is, the reason you cannot name any Republicans who have been involved with the betterment of race relations or civil rights, is because there hasn't been any within the past 100 years.[/quote]
I guess Eisenhower doesn't count.

Who is Blanche K. Bruce? First african-american born into slavery
elected to the senate. A Republican elected in 1874 presiding over the Senate in 1879.
Who is Octaviano Larrazo? First Hispanic senator elected in 1928. Republican.
see the common thread; they were not Democrats. Why?
You have no clue as to the efforts of others (mostly Republican) that have tried to advance the rights of minorities other than the rethoric you want to hear.

[Beaker]

[quote name='sneaky' date='Sep 3 2005, 07:07 PM']You have to look at this issue from the beginning. An entire race of people were persecuted and oppressed economically, culturally, and educationally for nearly 300 years. When that happens, it is going to have  social, educational, and economical ramifications from generation to generation.[/quote]

That climate ended for the most part around 40 yrs ago. You cant change what happened. Thats at least 2 generations since people said enough is enough. Blacks cant move forward until they stop looking back. Blaming gets you nowhere. You have to take advantage of the opportunities that are now in front of you.

[quote]But to imply that blacks have reached the "equal playing level" and no "glass ceilings" exist anymore is absurd.[/quote]

Actually the playing field is now tilted in their favor in numerous situations.

[quote]The thing that disturbs me the most with Republicans is their naive or obnoxious assertions that if you are poor it is because you are not educated.  The GOP constant blanket answer is "education", and that education is the "only" key to the progression of the black people is also absurd.[/quote]

I dont think anyone has ever asserted that education is the ONLY thing holding blacks back. It is a complex mixture of many factors. But education is a highly obvious one, and one that is easiest to fix. There is nowhere in this country where blacks cant go to school and get a basic education. In fact, the problem in most areas is keeping them in school. That is where the other factors come into play. Factors such as the culture of instant gratification, no accountibility for your own actions, loss of the family, fathers not around, not placing value on education and hard work, etc.

[quote]I guess the thing that bothers me the most about the GOP and their view on race relations is that it is purely disingenuous. George Bush and most Republicans couldn't give a rat's ass about the plight or struggles of black people.[/quote]

Its rather pompous of you to claim that you know what someone else is feeling.

[quote]I believe the driving force behind changing these laws is not for the best interest of black people or Americans in general, but the fear or anger that one day some white person somewhere may not get a job or scholarship because God forbid a ....black person got it, because there was a law or program that helped him or her get it. [right][post="141558"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post][/right][/quote]

Again, assuming you know how someone else is thinking and feeling. The driving force behind ANY smart business owner is hiring the best qualified person. If you let that person get away, he most likely goes to your competition. I have never met or known anyone who when faced with a highly qualified candidate would not hire based on skin color alone.

[|Lucid|]

The problem with sdaying that education is the answer (which to a large degree itis), is that public education in this country is far from standardized.


How come some schools have current text books, moden lab facilities, computers, olympic sized swimming pools and fancy foodcourts, and loads of extracurricular activities, while other schools can barely affors to buy books, let alone fund EC programs like sports etc..

Because public schools are currently funded by the property taxes generated within thier districts.

If you are living in an inner-city "poor" neighborhood, which generates little to no property taxes you simply get an inferior education, while children living in more affluent districts get FAR superior facilities and teaching....

Why is it some children are worth more than others??

Why is it when politicians discuss standardizing public education all they talk about is standardizing expectations through testing, and never about standardizing facilities and materials through standardized FUNDING??

How is it fair to expect children in disadvantaged schools to perform to the same level as those in schools who can afford cutting edge materials, better teachers, and maintian better teacher to student ratios...

Until we standardize funding for public education, we can't use the education argument as the answer to this problem..

Why don't we establish a formula that would assign a value to funding based on the number of students in a given district, so that all our children are recieving a standardized level of education??

Because rich people in the suburbs bristle at the idea that they might lose that olympic size swimming pool or may have to make the Latin Club pay to participate. Why should they have to pay for some low-life's kids education??

Don't you see a problem here? You can't have it both ways.

[Guest steggyD]

Equality does not mean equality in the sense that everyone has the same things. It means that everyone has the same opportunity, everyone is allowed to step into another level. There is nothing that holds you back.

And guess what, poor white people go the same schools as poor black people. There are many opportunities available for poor people now, that middle income people do not have. They can go to schools and get tons more financial aid. They can even start at a community college, and work their way into a four year college. There are so many opportunities, it's unreal. Trust me, I've used them all, and I came from a poor family. I just don't let anything keep me from moving forward.

[Guest steggyD]

And another thing. Those in the nicer neighborhood are paying tons more in property taxes also. And I sure as hell think they would be pissed if they pay so much more and get less out of it. I know I would.

[|Lucid|]

[quote name='steggyD' date='Sep 3 2005, 11:52 PM']And another thing. Those in the nicer neighborhood are paying tons more in property taxes also. And I sure as hell think they would be pissed if they pay so much more and get less out of it. I know I would.
[right][post="141862"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post][/right][/quote]


They get more for their money.. Ever been to a nice neighborhood that had potholes in their street?? Police and fire response is faster / better...


It's not like they don't get a return on the money...

Besides... I'm not saying that it's not a sacrifice... But one needs to be made.. If you want to say education is the answer... FINE... Make it the answer.. Fix the public school system..

In the end it will make us all wealthier... The more we enable the poor classes to succeed (of any race) the better we will all be for it.

[Guest bengalrick]

[quote name='Lucid' date='Sep 3 2005, 11:45 PM']The problem with sdaying that education is the answer (which to a large degree itis), is that public education in this country is far from standardized.
How come some schools have current text books, moden lab facilities, computers, olympic sized swimming pools and fancy foodcourts, and loads of extracurricular activities, while other schools can barely affors to buy books, let alone fund EC programs like sports etc..

Because public schools are currently funded by the property taxes generated within thier districts.

If you are living in an inner-city "poor" neighborhood, which generates little to no property taxes you simply get an inferior education, while children living in more affluent districts get FAR superior facilities and teaching....

Why is it some children are worth more than others??

Why is it when politicians discuss standardizing public education all they talk about is standardizing expectations through testing, and never about standardizing facilities and materials through standardized FUNDING??

How is it fair to expect children in disadvantaged schools to perform to the same level as those in schools who can afford cutting edge materials, better teachers, and maintian better teacher to student ratios...

Until we standardize funding for public education, we can't use the education argument as the answer to this problem..

Why don't we establish a formula that would assign a value to funding based on the number of students in a given district, so that all our children are recieving a standardized level of education??

Because rich people in the suburbs bristle at the idea that they might lose that olympic size swimming pool or may have to make the Latin Club pay to participate.  Why should they have to pay for some low-life's kids education??

Don't you see a problem here?  You can't have it both ways.
[right][post="141858"][/post][/right][/quote]

this is a very enlightening post... i do want to say one thing before i get into this more... i think in kentucky at least, that the amount of funding does come directly from the amount of students that attend that school... i think that they average up how many kids are actually there (they keep a running count each day) and they get their funds based on that... i could be wrong about this, but i always heard this when i was in school, and assumed it to be true... i can't speak for other school districts and its too late for me to try to find any info on this... i believe the gas tax is what funds the kentucky schools...

anyway, i see your point... if the funds are based solely on tax revenue, then the lower class neighborhoods will definately suffer from that... your right, it should be based on number of students and not local tax revenue... we can't have a situation where you have no chance to get a quality education (though i'd argue i didn't recieve one either damn public schools)... if what your saying is true, then its pretty obvious of why this is happening... the tax dollars should be divided by amount of students that attend school and averaged up like i explained above... the teachers salary though, should matter on test scores b/c we need to reward our great teachers in this country...

but we should pay teachers more in general too, b/c they mean so much for our future... we need to push kids much faster, if they are ready... i think that i should have pretty much been doing alegebra in about 3rd or 4rth grade, instead of using 3 years to "review" the same shit over and over... i wouldn't have done very well moving up fast in things like english, but i suck at that even today... we should move students up to their levels, instead of holding them back so others can catch up... pushing people is the way you get the most out of them, not reviewing what you already know... i know that there are AP classes but those kids are just plain smart in general... i wasn't that kid, but i was someone that always understood math and science pretty good... plus the AP classes didn't really start for us until around 6th grade... the quicker you are exposed to things, the better you will be able to handle bigger and better things... alright, end of rant [img]http://forum.go-bengals.com/public/style_emoticons//26.gif[/img]

[Beaker]

[quote name='Lucid' date='Sep 4 2005, 04:45 AM']If you are living in an inner-city "poor" neighborhood, which generates little to no property taxes you simply get an inferior education, while children living in more affluent districts get FAR superior facilities and teaching....

Why is it some children are worth more than others??

[right][post="141858"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post][/right][/quote]

That issue is more complex than just funding Lucid. For example, Cincinnati Public schools have the highest (or second highest, I forget which) spending per pupil in the state of Ohio. They still have run down buildings, cant attract teachers, inferior materials, etc.

The reason isnt money...its things like high truancy, lack of parental involvement, no respect for teachers and property, violence, etc. I fully believe you can get a good education on a dirt floor if the students come to school, they understand that learning is important, their parents value education and instill that in them, the teacher doesnt have to fear violence...and all the other things schools in poor neighborhoods face.

You gotta clean up the culture at home in order for schools to be more effective. The thing that is most often overloked is that schools are not the source of education...schools and home are a PARTNERSHIP in getting a child an education. If one side of the partnership fails, its the child that suffers. I believe all over this country, no matter how poor the district, the schools are trying their best to uphold their end of things. I know plenty of inspired teachers in the Cincinnati Public district who cant get much done because of the student attitude and truancy.

[Beaker]

[quote name='Lucid' date='Sep 4 2005, 04:55 AM']If you want to say education is the answer... FINE... Make it the answer.. Fix the public school system.
[right][post="141864"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post][/right][/quote]

Gotta fix the culture at home before you can fix the schools. You can have all the palacial schools you want, but with non-attending, disrespectful students and indifferent or non-existant parents it wont make a difference.

[Guest steggyD]

[quote name='Beaker' date='Sep 4 2005, 12:04 PM']Gotta fix the culture at home before you can fix the schools. You can have all the palacial schools you want, but with non-attending, disrespectful students and indifferent or non-existant parents it wont make a difference.
[right][post="142056"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post][/right][/quote]
Agreed.

My children attend a "poorer" public school right now. They pretty much are the best students in their class right now. Why? Because we make sure they value their education. They are held back a little bit by some of the unruliness by the other students, a distraction if you will, but we make sure they get the best out of it, until we can get them into a better school district. And I'd have to say, "Thank God," for better school districts. What makes them better school districts? Students with parents who have better understanding and values towards education.

[|Lucid|]

[quote name='Beaker' date='Sep 4 2005, 10:59 AM']That issue is more complex than just funding Lucid. For example, Cincinnati Public schools have the highest (or second highest, I forget which) spending per pupil in the state of Ohio. They still have run down buildings, cant attract teachers, inferior materials, etc.

The reason isnt money...its things like high truancy, lack of parental involvement, no respect for teachers and property, violence, etc. I fully believe you can get a good education on a dirt floor if the students come to school, they understand that learning is important, their parents value education and instill that in them, the teacher doesnt have to fear violence...and all the other things schools in poor neighborhoods face.

You gotta clean up the culture at home in order for schools to be more effective. The thing that is most often overloked is that schools are not the source of education...schools and home are a PARTNERSHIP in getting a child an education. If one side of the partnership fails, its the child that suffers. I believe all over this country, no matter how poor the district, the schools are trying their best to uphold their end of things. I know plenty of inspired teachers in the Cincinnati Public district who cant get much done because of the student attitude and truancy.
[right][post="142053"][/post][/right][/quote]

Yeah righjt.. Truancy keeps the school from affording text books, and fixing the holes in the roof..


SUUUUUUUUUURE


Like you got an education on a dirt floor... Fucking whatever

[Guest steggyD]

[quote name='Lucid' date='Sep 4 2005, 09:03 PM']Yeah righjt.. Truancy keeps the school from affording text books, and fixing the holes in the roof..
SUUUUUUUUUURE
Like you got an education on a dirt floor... Fucking whatever


[right][post="142330"][/post][/right][/quote]
The schools in NY, I know for a fact, all have the same exact text books. Yet, the students perform differently from district to district. No holes in the roofs. Tell me, what's the excuse? It's the attitude. A winning attitude will bring a winning performance in the classroom.

[|Lucid|]

Heres an [url="http://ww4.choice.net/~grays/osf-currentsystem&problems.htm"]article[/url] describing the funding of Ohio's Public Schools

[quote]OHIO'S CURRENT SCHOOL FUNDING SYSTEM
Ohio's constitution declares that the state "...shall provide for a thorough and efficient system of public schools...." Accordingly the legislature has enacted countless laws prescribing how schools are funded and regulating most aspects of daily school operation. Let's look specifically at school funding provisions.
Under Ohio's current School Foundation Program, state and local school boards share responsibility for funding the day to day operational costs of schools ( teachers, transportation, textbooks, utilities, etc.). Additionally there is a small amount of federal funding, about 5%, provided to public schools - typically for specific programs. Excluding federal funding, the state provides about 45% of all school operations funds and local school districts provide about 55%.

[b]School districts provide their funding share through local taxes - predominately property taxes but in a few cases partly through an income tax. All local taxes enacted go completely to the local school district for which they are enacted. [/b]

The state funding share is appropriated through a biennium state budget which determines both the amount of funding and the method by which it is disbursed to individual schools.

The amount is determined by enacting a "formula amount" for calculating "basic state aid" per pupil and enacting unit funding amounts for "categorical aid" (special education, transportation, etc.). For most districts, 70-80% of state school funding is provided through basic aid.

"Basic aid" funding is shared between state and local school districts. The "basic aid" formula amount is multiplied by the number of students in the district to establish a funding pool. A district's local share is calculated based on the districts apparent wealth and is subtracted from the funding pool. The remaining "basic aid" funding is the share provided by the state.

Nearly all facility funding is provided by local school districts -- most commonly through bond issues. Bond issues are similar to mortgages for private homeowners in that the money to construct facilities is borrowed through sales of bonds and then paid back to bondholders over a 20 year or longer timeframe.[/quote]

[quote][b]Ohio's spending per pupil leads the nation in disparity ranging from $3,345 to $24,160 per pupil. This disparity directly affects the quality of education. A student moving from a "wealthy" district to a "poor" one finds a vast difference in opportunities and basic resources[/b][/quote]

[quote]The same Department of Taxation study found that inequities in distribution of funding grew worse because of HB920.[b] Districts which successfully regularly passed levies were well funded. Those that had difficulty passing levies were poorly funded[/b].[/quote]


Because of the way taxes are handled for funding of schools, they are forced to keep up with inflation by passing levees.


[quote]A state sponsored facilities study in 1990 showed $ 10 billion was needed to bring school facilities into compliance with building codes. The facilities need is now estimated to be $ 16 billion[/quote]

[quote]Rather than provide funding to bring facilities into compliance with state building codes, the legislature exempted schools from many code requirements.[/quote]





From an article in [url="http://www.citybeat.com/2002-03-07/news.shtml"]City Beat[/url]

[quote]"Ohio has some of the worst schools in the country," she says. "Cincinnati has some of the worst schools in Ohio."[/quote]

[quote]School buildings were neglected because the funds were not available to maintain them, according to Ingram. When the choice is between fixing a roof or feeding the kids underneath it, she says, the district feeds the kids.[/quote]

[quote]"The school board and the administration for decades were forced to make the hard choices," she says.[/quote]

[quote]In the 1999-2000 school year, Cincinnati Public Schools spent $8,170 per pupil, or $1,113 more than the state average, according to the Ohio Department of Education.

Cincinnati spent $237 less per pupil than the Columbus School district. Cincinnati met six of the 27 standards in the state report card, while Columbus met only five. The Cleveland School district, which met only three of the standards that year, spent $337 less per pupil than Cincinnati.

The Wyoming City School District (rich SD) met all 27 of the state academic standards on the 2001 report card. It spent $8,221 per student. That was only $51 more than Cincinnati, but Wyoming's median household income was $53,923. Cincinnati's was $24,559.[/quote]


[quote]Per-pupil spending doesn't account for all of the disparities between urban and suburban classrooms. Another important measure is household income. [b]In Cincinnati, 65.6 percent of the students were eligible for free and discounted lunches, compared to just 2.7 percent of the students in Wyoming.[/b][/quote]


Keep in mind the the state was sued and lost in a supreme court ruling that the way the public school system was funded was unconstitutional..

The supreme court ordered that a formula be enacted for providing a minimum basic per student funding for each school district. These standards weren't even fully put into place until a few years ago. Keep in mind that many of these disadvantaged schools, due to the unconstitutionally low level of funding and neglect, were at a vastly disproportionate level of functionality when these new state funding procedures were put into effect... You can see what I am talking about when you consider the richer schools districts had modern facilities, text books, computer systems etc... And those poorly funded schools have old broken facilities (that in many cases are far below code), outdated text books, no computers.. etc. Simply levelling the amount of money paid per student is not enough to get these schools to the same level as the ones in richer districts.. Without the tax revunue, and the ability to raise levees, these schools are stuck with vast deficiencies that are impossible to overcome. There is also the problem in lower income areas, of the amount of money allocated per student to provide free and reduced lunches.

Another thing to consider looking at this issue is the level of grants and donations made by alumni and local businesses. I am not saying that there is anything wrong with people giving to their local schools.. It's a good thing and it should not be legislated.. But often these contributions can be quite substantial, and this income is not accurately taken into account when providing state and federal funding... It simply makes sense that schools in affluent areas will have more graduates who go on to make more money and thus have more opportunity to give. This is fine and good, but in the process we must recognize this fact when looking at funding and claiming things are "even".

And for the argument that kids, with proper parenting should be able to learn in any environment is simply unfair.. Sure, they [b]could[/b]. People have the ability to overcome many hardships, and those that are strong enough surely can overcome many manners of hardship and flourish.. The question is, is it fair to expect equal performance with less then equal opportunity? Sure, it's possible, but is it right??

I understand that this is a difficult issue. And I understand the arguments against truly getting into it and fixing things.. It would be an expensive and difficult process.

There are also issues of people who believe that they worked hard to give their kids the ability to attend an affluent school, and that it isn't fair to expect them to sacrifice that for someone who maybe didn;t work as hard, and doesn't deserve it. This argument is valid to some extent.. Although I disagree with it, I can understand it.

The reason I disagree with this last point is that I honestly believe it is in ALL our best interest to have a public school system that functions on the highest level. One of the reasons our country was able to become the worlds technological leader was through aggressive public education that was the envy of the world until the past 20 years.

With a properly functioning education system we can increase the competency of our workforce, increase the numbers of skilled laborers, decrease drug use and crime and an general have more informed and responsible voting citizens.

[Guest steggyD]

So, are you involved in changing Ohio's school system? Or do you just like to complain on a Bengals' forum?

[|Lucid|]

[quote name='steggyD' date='Sep 4 2005, 09:39 PM']So, are you involved in changing Ohio's school system? Or do you just like to complain on a Bengals' forum?
[right][post="142416"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post][/right][/quote]


HELLO!!

This is the Jesus&Bubya forum...

Not the bengals forum,, Nothing here has anything to do with the bengals.

[img]http://forum.go-bengals.com/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/30.gif[/img]

[Guest steggyD]

[quote name='Lucid' date='Sep 4 2005, 10:40 PM']HELLO!!

This is the Jesus&Bubya forum...

Not the bengals forum,, Nothing here has anything to do with the bengals.

[img]http://forum.go-bengals.com/public/style_emoticons//30.gif[/img]
[right][post="142420"][/post][/right][/quote]

The Official Go-Bengals.com Cincinnati Bengals Message Board

Also, I was not being a smart-ass. I kinda meant what I said. If you feel that the state's school system is screwed up, then get involved. You'd be surprised at how much the people can change on the city and state levels.

[|Lucid|]

[quote name='steggyD' date='Sep 4 2005, 09:43 PM']
The Official Go-Bengals.com Cincinnati Bengals Message Board

Also, I was not being a smart-ass. I kinda meant what I said. If you feel that the state's school system is screwed up, then get involved. You'd be surprised at how much the people can change on the city and state levels.
[right][post="142424"][/post][/right][/quote]


In order for things to change requires the politicians to do something about it.. That will require a mandate from the people. The first step in that is for people to understand the system and it's failings..

Engaging in rational discourse on a grass roots level is part of the process.

I vote in all state, local and federal elections, and have since I was 18.. I even used absentee ballots while I was in the service. I do work to change it.

[Guest BlackJesus]

[img]http://www.z7q2.com/fark/2003/april/0412.jpg[/img]