sc94597 said:
Many poor-performing districts already get better state and federal funding on a per student basis than high-performing districts. The problem is that it can cost more to educate a student in a low SES district than it does in a high SES district because they often have more needs/deficits and fewer resources outside of school. How do you fundamentally see this as different from affirmative action? Is the major difference that it isn't explicitly racial and it applies to a group (the district) and not an individual as a member of said group? Underlying any of these policy change recommendations is the fact that white-americans want segregation because they think it benefits them, so it isn't clear to me that they'd support increased public funding to mostly non-white districts systematically. The main advantage of integration/desegregation is that the racial aspect is de-emphasized because you have a decent proportion of white and non-white students mutually in the district and the parents have to be invested in the education standards of non-white children in the same district as their white children. One solution to unbanking is to bring back postal banking |
I guess the difference would be allocating resources and support depending strictly based on need rather than race, like to an individual person based on how much they personally need it rather than whether they belong to a specific ethnic group, or to a district based on needs rather than the race of the people who live there. If that means helping a district that is mostly black, that's fine.







