This is actually a re-post of a reply I made earlier, but I think it's worth its own thread. If you've seen this before, I apologize in advance. Socio-economic status has been overemphasized in this discussion, and I believe this question needs to be asked.. Did we first discover poverty last week? Doubtful. Let me ask you all a vital question to this discussion. How many of us had rich, well-off parents? Now, how many of us had rich, well-off grandparents? Great-grandparents? I'm sure the number gets smaller with each generation as we go back. Didn't our grandparents and great-grandparents figure out a way to learn what they needed to learn and eventually make a living for themselves? My grandmother was born in 1922. She had plenty of memories of the real Great Depression. When a bowl of cereal was your big meal for the week, or when actually putting moo-cow milk on it instead of water was a luxury, one has to ask just how important socio-economic status really is. My grandparents generation struggled, toiled and suffered. Not a handful of them, most of them. Yet, in the end, they wound up with their own free-standing house, a car or two, and maybe even a color TV. They got through it, and no, they weren't stupid.

From a racial perspective, this is, in a nut shell, a race-bating society, hence why so much of this discussion involves race. Herein lies a societal problem that manifests itself in our schools. Many folks look for anything they can find that appears to be racist and ride that horse till it keels over. If a school or program for low-performing students has more blacks than whites, some idiot will say that it's a segregationist dumping ground for blacks. No, it's a class for low-performing kids, it just so happens that more of them are black. Here we are trying to provide a solution that we can't use. And we wonder why our schools are failing? I think this proves the point in my first post on this matter.

I think it's clear that someone that is in any kind of position of authority in a school or district start making the case that we need to simply stop talking about race because it's distracting us from the real purpose of school. At some point, be it school programs, employers, colleges, banks, insurance companies, or whatever, need to place, accept, or deny people based on merit and actual accomplishment. A huge reason we are in the mortgage situation we're in is because bankers' policies of minimum loans, application fees, and yes, loan denials, were called "racist" (this was back in 1992) because poor people from the inner city (primarily black) couldn't get loans. Forget that they couldn't afford them, we had to make sure they got 'em. Presto-chango, you have a mortgage crisis.

This is why I'm so adamant about parents actually giving a damn about their kids and being involved in their education. It isn't just about money or race. If you have enough to eat, keep a roof over your head and clothes on your body, that should be more than enough to get through learning your multiplication tables. Hard work and accountability cannot be replaced by government policy or school initiatives. It may sound harsh, but it is true.

It's not harsh--even well-meaning, well-off parents are often clueless about what teachers actually do, and why they do it. And this gives them unreasonable expectations.

And that is part of the nature of public education--education that is "free." It has long since ceased to be seen as a "privilege" and is now talked about as a "right"--a non-constitutionally mandated or Creator-provided "right" to a government-provided education

What are parents willing to do for their child's education? And what do we do with the children whose parent(s) aren't willing to do anything?

"And that is part of the nature of public education--education that is "free." It has long since ceased to be seen as a "privilege" and is now talked about as a "right"--a non-constitutionally mandated or Creator-provided "right" to a government-provided education"

I think this concept could be applied anywhere. We have the "Bill of Rights" which I think is pretty clear, and there's that whole "life, liberty and pursuit of happiness" thing. But there are those out there (getting into politics now), typically liberal Democrats, that think people have the "right" to a job, a house, a car, cheap gas, whatever.

It just comes down to entitlement. People believe (or in today's society, "feel" might be the more accurate term) that they are owed something, for whatever reason. They've been brainwashed into believing that the government is the provider and caretaker, and in this case, educator. If Obama gets himself elected, healthcare is next. We've created a class of dependents that will always rely on government money and welfare programs because they've learned that they can't do it by themselves, and thus have never learned how to do it by themselves. These are the people that wouldn't vote for a Republican if Jesus himself were on the ticket. I digress, but the point is clear. Educate people into believing that they are dependent, and many will actually believe it.

good post, I agree that we have allowed too much coddling under the "race" or other "Socio-economic" codes..

however, what do we do with the kids whose parents do not care, are missing, etc.? isn't this the real issue in our cities?

>>These are the people that wouldn't vote for a Republican if Jesus himself were on the ticket

you should know there are many people in this country for whom you can replace "Republican" with "Democratic". I am happy to anounce I do not belong to either group. what about you?

as to healthcare; surely you know the difference between welfare and insurance? 99% of of the population would not be able to afford cancer treatment on their own, this is why we have insurance, to spread the risks, same as we do have car and house insurance. Is there any republican who wants to CANCEL healthcare insurance? the real discussion here is which insurance is more efficient. universal healthcare , if done right (and that's a big if) can ensure that those who contribute nothing today to healthcare will do so.

"At some point, be it school programs, employers, colleges, banks, insurance companies, or whatever, need to place, accept, or deny people based on merit and actual accomplishment."

I agree which is why it is so frustrating to see white upper and middle class students get all the advantages. They go to better elementary schools with better teachers. Their parents are more likely to be college educated and push them scholastically. Their high schools offer advanced placement courses and the kind of sports and extra ciricular programs that will allow them to get into the best colleges. They don't have to worry about paying for school because mommy and daddy pay for it. While they are in college the get unpaid summer internships at Daddy's firm that no poor kid could possibly get (and they can't afford to work for free either). Those internships and Daddy's college buddies help them get a good job out of school. When will we start making these kids start on a level playing field and make it on merit?

Um, If daddy works at a "firm" that offers unpaid internships... That student is squarely in the upper class, there is no middle class about it.

It's this kind of speech that is not helping the racial divide in this country. There are too many sons/daughters of white auto mechanics, bus drivers or carpenters who are being told by society that they are not as disadvanted as the son/daughter of a black white collar paper pusher.

I'll try to cover as much as I can without making 9 more posts, so here goes:

Ayalon, you're 100% right in your diagnosis of the inner city problems. I would go one step further by saying that those problems are exacerbated by the borderline socialist practices that go on in the inner city (free houses, food, health care, etc). What to do with the kids? Well, we can't just walk in and snatch them. That's illegal. But, we can teach them while they are at school. Schools are chock full of teachers, counselors and support staff. When given the chance they do a fine job. Either way, we can't be afraid to use Method A or Method B because some cultural Marxist is going to call it racist.

As to your political question, I answered it in my original statement. Now, all I'm going to say about government-run health insurance is this. We are currently talking about the debacle that is, essentially, government-run education, and the problems with it and other things being "free" to everyone. I'll take my chances with the private sector.

Jiggs, I don't even know what to make of your post. Are you saying that upper class kids should be knocked down a few pegs? Perhaps forced to go to some inner city school that sucks? Or, impose inner city students and all their inherent problems on more affluent and/or higher quality schools? Or, are you saying that we continue to simply pour bucketloads of money onto worthless school systems in the hope that someday the problem will solve itself? Maybe I'm mischaracterizing your post, so please explain your ideas so that I might have a better understanding of what you're talking about.

I really have no idea where this idea that Government can do nothing right came from but it seems to have increased remarkably since the fall of the U.S.S.R. It also seems to be only present in the United States. Other countries seem to be free of this belief.

In my hometown, the government did a fine job of providing very good public schools and parks and a rather nice municipal swimming pool and public library. Other people I know had similar experiences in other towns, cities, and counties through out the country. The thing is that people in these communties actually believed in public education and parks and were willing to be taxed so the institutions would be provided with the necessary money.

Government services are only inefficient when there is not enough money to support them. This tends to be because of greed because people do not want to pay the relevant taxes to support the relevant institutions. However, as the Republican Oliver Wendel Holmes, Jr., pointed out "taxes are the price of a civilized society" and I really doubt most people would like to live in libertopia where everything is run for a profit.

Universal health insurance seems to be much more efficient that the American model. There are problems with such systems but people in countries with universal healthcare seem to have fewer complaints. People also do not go bankrupt because of medical expenses.

Lee, other countries are "free" of that belief because they either have a gun to their head as in the Middle East, or have been brainwashed to believe in government force as in Europe. America was not founded on the belief that government could, or even should, solve our problems. America was founded on individual liberty being the solution to the human condition. Any other such belief is, and I know I'll get hammered for this word, un-American.

Why did the fall of the USSR spark (or confirm) the belief that government doesn't do much right? Well, the USSR fell, that's why. The USSR, as we all know, was the epitome of socialism. They were communist, through and through. It was a government of elites that dictated who could have what resulting in widespread poverty amongst the citizens. Even China, as communist as that country is, has figured out that some level of capitalism is the only way they can grow their economy. The USSR never figured that out, and if they did, no one would admit it.

The biggest problem with socialized medicine is that, as in Canada, the world's model for health care, costs are low, but so is supply. In the US, there isn't a 4-6 month waiting period for simple procedures like an MRI. A prime example of government forcing prices down is the so-called deregulation of energy providers in California. All it did was produce black-outs. You can't force prices down while maintaining the other economic standards of supply, demand, and production costs.

Government programs are inefficient because the people running them are inefficient. Government itself is inefficient. Remember how Nancy Pelosi promised the American people that she and her democrat buddies would lower gas prices? Great job, Nancy. Her "lowering" of gas prices has gotten us to $4 a gallon. I really hope our congress stops lowering our gas prices. If they get any lower, I might have to sell my car.

I'm sure most people in America could point to a cute little park and a nice school and say, "yeah, our government rocks!" Yet, anyone who lives in or near government-rich cities like Pittsburgh, Detroit, New Orleans, or Philadelphia may just have another perspective. Local governments are limited in what they can do. They don't have the tax base of a large city, a state, or the Feds. Local municipalites pretty much stay out of the way because they don't have the means to intrude into your life the way the state and federal guys do.

Now, your comment on greed is very telling. At what point are we paying enough in taxes, and at what point do we decide that if we want it, we'll pay for it ourselves? Why should we approve of the government continuously finding ways to spend our money for us? It's not greed, it's the fact that we earned the money. It's ours to save or spend as we see fit. Your view of wealth is very different from the true American ideal. This idea that wealth belongs to the state and we all get to keep a little piece for ourselves as long as the government will allow it is just ludicrous if you believe in liberty. At some point, it's OK for the people to say, "Enough is enough." If Uncle Sam wants to fund some new pork project, he'll have to figure out what other project to cut. That's what we have to do, right? We cannot allow, nor can we afford, to give any government free reign to endlessly jack up taxes. Government, by nature, is not fiscally responsible, but we're supposed to be all right with them deciding to take more of our money, forcing us to scrimp and save more than we already do? No, I don't think so.

"Jiggs, I don't even know what to make of your post. Are you saying that upper class kids should be knocked down a few pegs?"

No, I was just being sarcastic. It always puzzles me when people rant against the "special privilages" of minorities and that they should rise on merit etc. when they completely ignore the inherent advantages white students have in our system. I'm white and grew up in an upper middle class neighborhood. We had great schools because they were paid for by local property taxes. I got the opportunity to have every advanced placement class and extra encrichment. I had wonderful teachers because my public school in the good neighborhood got to cherry pick the very best while the rest went to the poor schools. I got an internship at IBM while I was in college because my friend's dad worked there. I went to a good four year college and didn't have to work three jobs to pay for it. I have achieved alot in life but I am not so naive as to think I earned it all on my own. I got alot of advantages that poor and minority students often don't get. That is why it makes me laugh when I hear people rant about the "advantages" that minorities get. Getting into a good school without all of the other advantages and preparation that I had is barely a leg up.

I see anybody who makes a choice different than the one you make either has a gun to his or her head or has been brainwashed? Under your world view it seems that it is completely impossible for somebody to examine a given situation and problem and come up with an entirely different solution than you without being under force of some kind. This worldview is interesting to say the least because it allows you to totally disregard those that disagree with you and their reasoning.

I also disagree with your interpretation of the ideology behind the Founding of America. The founders were against taxation without representation. They were angry that the British Parliament was taxing them because they had no representation in Parliament. The Founders who rebelled against Britain also set up Government services like the United States Post Office, which was very important as a means of binding the country together during the early years of the US. Thomas Jefferson, the fonder that many libertarians claim to admire the most, was an early advocate for public education. Alexander Hamilton argued for subsidizing American businesses. The Founders were not a bunch of anti-government libertarians and had a very complex understanding of the role and nature of government.

"...the inherent advantages white students have in our system. I'm white and grew up in an upper middle class neighborhood. "

So, I'm assuming that your school was 100% white, as they turned black kids away at the door. Or did the upper middle class neighborhood lock them out at the gate? Actually, I'm not assuming that at all, but I think this highlights a gross disconnect between our points of view. Your statement assumes that your whiteness was the reason for your affluency and success. Unless black kids actually are rejected at the door, it had more to do with you taking advantage of the opportunities provided by a school that actually does it right.

School districts are pretty big, and I would have a tough time believing that any one school district is all rich or all poor. Of course there are variations from one side to the other, with most being in the middle somewhere. I thought I was pretty clear in my earlier posts that money has little to do with it. If the home sucks, then you've got bigger problems than cash flow. My problem is with the victimhood mentality that segments of the population buy into and, in turn, demanding more free this-or-that that will eventually be squandered before demanding more. You'll never totally eradicate idiocy at any income level, but if people were forced to take more responsibility into their own hands (I'm specifically talking about adults here) then maybe they would appreciate what they have and work to protect it, thereby setting a good example for their kids.

"So, I'm assuming that your school was 100% white, as they turned black kids away at the door. Or did the upper middle class neighborhood lock them out at the gate?"

Actually, my school was about 60% white, 20% asian, 10% black, 10% and latino. The only thing that locked out minorities was property values. If your parents did not go to college and did not make a good living they could not live in our district. If your parents were poor then you lived on the other side of town and went to a different school with no AP classes, worse teachers, and terrible facilities (their pool was empty for the four years I was in high school because they could not afford maintenance, meanwhile I was on the water polo team and got to travel on the school's dime).

Obviously the family has a greater influence than any other source but to say that money has no impact is absurd. The best teachers go to the best schools with the best students and the best facilities in the best neighborhoods. If you REALLY think that the kid at that school has the same opportunities as the kid at the poor school you are fooling yourself.

Jiggs, thanks for acknowledging the leg up you got in life--it's refreshing.