It wouldn't be breast cancer since those cases amongst children are extremely rare. So does that mean breast cancer awareness organizations don't really care about cancer patients or children? That isn't my logic. It is the logic of those that claim BLM needs to not have a targeted focus and should instead focus on other issues that already have numerous community groups targeting them.
Me questioning your logic on the topic at hand and addressing the questions and issues that you raise isn't changing the subject.
BLM currently has the highest profile at the moment so they should be interested in raising awareness of issues involving ALL black lives. Otherwise their name, Black Lives Matter, is a misnomer.
I was hoping to have had this conversation via private message but I guess we're having it now. Look up "Abbott district" in the state of New Jersey: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abbott_district. These were originally 28 (later 31) of the absolute poorest school districts in the state of New Jersey that the state bailed out in the 1990s, and Abbott funding to these districts continues until this day. Please note as the wiki article does that "There is limited evidence that the legal actions have improved student learning outcomes in the Abbott districts.[13] Instead, despite 40 years of increased funding, the gaps between Abbott Schools and the suburban counterparts has widened significantly.[6]" In contrast to your rather presumptuous post about my personal background from Tuesday: I grew up in one of those Abbott districts. I went to school in one of those Abbott districts. My father was the high school principal in one of those Abbott districts, and my mother was a special education teacher in one of those Abbott districts. It may interest you to know a bit more about my thinking re education policy. I think it may be easier for people who have gone through public school systems that are relatively well-off and educationally effective to sing the praises of "public education," but for me and my family the reality was quite different. I was essentially home schooled by my parents, again both of them teachers, before our family moved out of the district altogether when I was 14 (Abbott funding for that school district was just a distant dream 15 years in the future.) The lengthy political wrangling over Abbott (which crucially has extremely significant implications for school choice) has not diminished the the core issues that motivated the bringing of the original lawsuit some 40 years ago. (In a lot of ways the Trump appointment of DeVos could have speeded up a long-overdue overhaul of some of the poorest school districts in the country, if he and she weren't such complete boneheads.) Arguably had school vouchers existed 45 years ago, my family might not have had to move but instead perhaps I would have had the ability to go to one of the private high schools I pleaded with my parents to let me attend, and which we couldn't afford. (I did not want to go to my dad's high school.) It was only when my parents moved us to a wealthier community (something not everyone in New Jersey can do) did I end up in a public school that was genuinely worthy of the designation "school." Our moving was almost entirely motivated by my parents seeking a better school system for their own children than the one they had dedicated their entire careers to serving and continued to serve another 20 years until they retired. You write: "How about this. Let's examine the public school districts in the wealthiest neighbor with high property values and therefore high amount of property taxes to fund their public schools and make that the standard for all school distrcits meaning a substantial increase in subsidies at the federal level to school districts in neighborhoods with low property values." I respond, how about this. Let's look at places where that kind of top-down funding of school districts in neighborhoods with low property values has actually been done before making substantial increase in subsidies at the federal level to school districts in neighborhoods with low property values. Throwing money at the problem is not necessarily the answer. While Abbot funding has actually improved some Abbot districts, it has not seemed to help one bit in others. This is a much more complicated and complex topic than you are making it out to be. Remaking public education in poor districts is just as hard--if not harder--than trying to remake the police departments in some of those very same poor cities. I probably have a lot more that I could say, but I'm pretty much done for the moment.
All black lives are at risk by discriminatory practices and use of lethal force by law enforcement that aren't held accountable and justice isn't served. Honestly all lives are.
See this is your problem. You convey your example of success and assume that all poor families have access to that choice when the supply is nowhere near the demand. Also, I'm sure you've heard of the term "confounding". Merely saying that increasing school funding didn't result in the outcomes desired doesn't mean increased school funding doesn't work. It just means there are other factors to solve such as creating a household environment where children have the opportunity to care about their education. https://www.chalkbeat.org/2019/8/13...e-money-for-schools-helps-low-income-students Also I can point to more studies that show increased school findings does account for better outcomes especially when you isolate confounding factors. https://learningpolicyinstitute.org/product/how-money-matters-report https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0047272719300623 Congrats school choice worked for you apparently. The part you don't grasp is that it doesn't work at a systemic level forafor everyone it leaves behinds many kids mostly in poor neighborhoods.
As a teacher in a low income community, I'm very aware of the issues at stake. School choice and voucher programs are certainly helpful for some but they hurt the most vulnerable a great deal. It's a crappy way to to deal. It has gotten even worse with the advent and attempt of folks like DeVos to have for profit public charter schools.
My wife and I met with a black woman who is one of the leaders regarding preserving and improving black neighborhoods and history in the St. Petersburg area yesterday. We discussed a number of topics including BLM. I strongly suggest you seek out a similar person in your area and get their perspective, thoughts and ideas rather than using your perspective.
http://njeducationaid.blogspot.com/2016/07/abbott-spending-has-been-ineffective.html?m=1 What are your thoughts on his opinions on Abbot districts.
unless this is a trick question, he is simply echoing the point I made above--throwing money at the problem is not necessarily the answer. While Abbot funding has actually improved some Abbot districts, it has not seemed to help one bit in others.
I'm not really saying "school choice is the answer." I don't have the answer. I don't even know what an answer would look like. I just know that in certain contexts you have very smart people who have offered what on the surface look to be workable ways to incorporate choice or vouchers (or whatever you want to call it) into the broader public education policy of various states. I think those proposals deserve consideration instead of being simply dismissed as "laughable." That's all.
Interesting idea...would definitely like to see a few test cases. There is definitely too much administration overhead in regards to schools these days and too much of our taxes are going to pay for that administration instead of going directly to the teachers, to technology that will help students, and/or resources that will help both. There are a couple of issues with the proposal from the article that I can't see working: - The amount of money from selling school property may be enough to get this idea off the ground in regards to an endowment, however, I doubt it will last long enough to help fund rent/lease/purchase costs long-term. However, the idea itself of moving to smaller schools that don't require large plots of land is a good one and would be much more manageable, like the article suggests. - The idea of state-subsidies ever stopping to make parents self-sufficient is the pipiest of pipe-dreams. Unless we change our economic system, I doubt it will ever be possible to get all parents to eventually pay for school and I'm not sure we want a bunch of uneducated citizens running around (not to mention that school is a defacto child-care for qutie a few of those parents). So the question becomes, how to fund those students in a way that doesn't cause others to "pay twice" for education. I'm not sure there's an easy answer for that without doing something across the board (maybe a grant system, scholarships, etc). I wouldn't have a clue as where to begin with it. And one other thing to think about: - We honestly need to overhaul our education system. It's an outdated/antiquated way that's holding quite a few of our children back from their true potential. As our world moves forward technologically, we really ought to rethink how we do things; it shouldn't have taken a virus to have us start looking at online/hybrid learning for kids of any age. You would also think that implementing more technology would allow for less administration in the schools. - (I lied, 2 things) which also leads to how we implement schools. A big problem in our schools is that we continue to put everyone on a college preparatory path...when not everyone is going to go to college. We really need to look at offering more vocational and skills based options in high school for kids that have no interest in continuing on. On that same note, we should look at allowing some of these same kids to "graduate" by the time they are 16 and move full-time into the work-force to start gaining the experience they need in those career fields. If we're allowing them to drive cars by then, they should be able to work full-time. Start building in more skills-bases classes in these smaller schools and we'll start having more plumbers, farmers, electricians, etc which is not a bad thing. This isn't a swing against college, because college is still valuable to many, but we need to give more options and allow kids to find their way. Then again, I'm open to many suggestions and POVs on this topic...the main thing is that our current way of doing education is failing and becoming a huge budgetary mess. Changing things up may hurt in the short-term, but we have to look long-term.
I think there is a way to use some form of it, but it isn't anything that has been proposed so far, and as I said the environment is changing in such a way as to make it harder to do it without punishing the most vulnerable. One of the biggest issues is that schools can simply claim or show that they just don't have the adequate resources to educate certain special needs populations. Then those students are automatically not allowed to go to those schools which might be the best schools. They don't have equal access. Not only that there are now fewer schools left for them so there will be extremely concentrated amounts of special needs students at certain schools. Of course, those schools testing scores will go down, there will be more discipline problems at those schools, and even fewer people will want to go to those schools and their funds are going to be less. Also, schools that keep special needs students out of their population can also have fewer distractions and it's much easier to create an environment and has higher test scores which make the school look good even though it isn't because they necessarily have better methods of instruction or strategies to provide better learning.
All? A bit melodramatic. Over 90% of black deaths are perpetrated by black people. Seems to be something there for BLM to get their teeth into - rather than zeroing in on the less than 10% - you know, to help these other organizations out. The only reason they are even relevant right now is because of a high profile case - something the media picked up and ran with and ran and ran. So the issue is not so much cops killing blacks as blacks killing each other in alarming numbers but apparently that is not as newsworthy atm, and why? People including blacks don't raise its profile high enough. So the media doesn't give it the airtime. Until this problem is dealt with, most of the citizenry will not give it enough credence for other issues to matter as much. It's human nature. I have two black grandsons and love them dearly - atm, their biggest danger is not from cops.
Ignoring the problem of lack of justice when white cops kill black people just because there are other problems isn't a strong case to make. The focused targeted effort appears to be making a change and some progress at last. We should all be happy about that.
Very logical and great questions. I am very impressed that you articulated the difference between the organization and the movement, I don't think that people protesting under that BLM banner really know what the organizations mission statement is. Good ****.
