By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
Soleron said:
mrstickball said:

I think that education has to really be taken care of in urban areas - the public education system in major cities is ensuring that minorities cannot get themselves out of welfare and systemic poverty. Additionally, I think welfare programs have to be removed or become very focused on goal-oriented, temporary assistance. If and when minorities can improve their lot, there will be a lot less strife - after all, the successful minorities (Asians, for example) simply do not have these problems.

Schools should be evenly funded (instead of varying by local taxes), and as a temporary measure the inner city schools should recieve more funding to create better facilities and attract the best teachers that can perhaps get more to go to college. Every student that is able to go to college from these areas needs to feel he or she can afford it - fully paid scholarships should not be limited to a certain number or require competitive application. The investment will be paid back as soon as these people don't end up in prison (very expensive) and get a job that contributes to the economy.

The problem is that most inner-city schools *do* get a lot more funding than rural schools. For example, DC and Detroit have the worst graduation rates in the USA. They cost $14,000 and $20,000 per student to teach, respectively. The reality is that in the US, there is no correlation to costs and performance. I'd have no problem with a temporary increase in funding for bad schools, but its never worked in America, as far as I can tell. Where I live, our schools spend between $5,300 and $8,500 per student. The school that spends $8,500 has the worst graduation rate (82% - mind you, Detroit is sub-40%), and the school that spends $5,300 graduates about 94% of kids (the other two schools are about $7,000 each and graduate ~90%).



Back from the dead, I'm afraid.