Hey, here's one.

I finally found something I agree with Bush about, and that is the fact that affirmative action is in itself racially biased, and that the automatic point-giving to minorites in order to assist their acceptance into college is likewise a racial bias. He's been getting a lot of heat about this; I agree with him for once.

Anybody else? And if this topic is too putzy, Ani... help....

--------------------

--------------------

Doesn't mean I'm gonna vote for him. Not by a long shot!

heheh...

--------------------

When I started FSU, I had a black female roomate. We both had Associates in Arts degrees, and both graduated from community college with a 3.8. She got scholarship money, I did not. Can I now argue that because I'm a short white person with a disability that I should have gotten money too since I am technically a minority? (i.e. person with disability in college). Or do I find it insulting for someone to imply that, because I'm disabled, I won't have a GPA as high as everyone else and should therefore be rewarded for my "effort"?

I'm telling you folks, it's the latter with me. To even suggest that someone in a minority can't perform as well as the general population is ridiculous. Scholarships should be rewarded on the basis of performance and academic achievement ALONE, no consideration whatsoever to race, sex, disability. THAT is the only fair way. The same goes with jobs and such.

Now that I've beat a dead horse, I'll shoosh.

--------------------

--------------------

Granted, it is the wealth of the districts which decide the "fates" of their schools: the wealthier suburbs with a lesser number of schools of course is going to have more money to begin with to use in their schools than the larger districts who encompass the entire gamut of socioeconomic class. But the trend is for districts to funnel as much as they can to assist the inner city kids; this is sometimes done by closing one school and consolidating. People holler that makes for a larger student-per-teacher ratio, but it does increase the funds allowed for that particular school.

And yes, maybe they are working with 1987 technology-- but they are online, where educational materials are free. There are also teacher resources open to them. And by the way, it's not just the inner-city teachers who are "over-worked and underpaid;" that is a problem existing across the board. It comes with the terrain.

A BIG problem lies beyond the scope of the schools -- or at least in an area they are expected to step in and take control of as well, and that is the family life of said students. Last I read I think it's around 20% of all students come from a solid nuclear family, no divorce; the majority come from broken homes and tons don't even have a home to go to. They are shuffled from grandparents to cousins to foster homes and whatnot; how do you think that makes a kid feel? A kid isn't going to worry about his achievement in school if he's got the self-esteem of a worm.

I guess I'm just trying to point out some deeper facts to think about; it's not as easy as you think to "blame the poor for the poor quality of education that they get." You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make him drink.

--------------------

--------------------

I think the way to do this is to federalize daycares and preschools... and make it mandatory that children attend preschool. Hire professionals in child development to operate these facilities; I know they are there in the preschools, but the daycares make me shudder. By treating our kids as they OUGHT to be treated and introducing this at an early enough age, we would help offset the opposite feelings and detrimental conditions many of them are subjected to in the home, and underscore those already lucky enough to have a good mentally, emotionally and physically nourishing homelife.

That to me is a major root of the problem. And this type of thing is instilled far earlier than people think... quite often by simple acts (or lack thereof) rather than words. (Although words do play a major part, don't misunderstand me.)

And I believe I did mention the financial discrepency existing between large-city school districts and their suburbs....

[ 01-22-2003 02:24 PM: Message edited 1 time, lastly by Graysith ]

--------------------

So basically, yes, the gov should fund preschools, but no they shouldn't be mandated - cause if Kindergarten leaves kids in tears everyday what will be those kids reacions to starting much younger?

--------------------

Those few who are extremely disturbed by such an environment can, of course, be treated as a special case.

I feel the pros far outweigh the cons. A good self-esteem is something every child deserves to have; perhaps being afraid of groups stems from the beginnings of low self-esteem to begin with (I am not good enough to be part of a group, and so on; this seems to be something I recall from my psych days, come to think of it) -- and by taking that child at that young of an age into a group situation, those beginnings of low self-esteem can be counterattacked by nurturing and so on.

In other words, as you say, by "forcing" the child into facing the problem, the problem may be overcome.

This will also be a great time to instill an enjoyment of reading into children. Studies show that the earlier you either begin to read to a child, or read in their presence, the greater chance that child has of developing a curiosity and love of reading.

Which of course is the foundation of school achievement levels. And so, so many do not get this simple thing at home.

--------------------