The rich opt out of this problem by sending their kids to private schools. So why shouldn't the middel class be able to send their kids to neiborhood schools if they are willing to part with the money necessary to live in a good neighborhood.Stop the social enginnering. for the most part it was and is a big failure.

You seem to view a good school as a benefit for the parents, and thus middle-class parents are just as entitled to a better school than poor parents as they are entitled to better houses and better cars. After all, it's their money and they earned it.

This is true, but only up to a point. Schools, after all, are primarily a benefit to children. And you should ask your self, why should one child, whose only mistake was choosing poor parents, be denied the decent education that, combined with hard work, is the best chance to escape poverty.

Clifton -

In a perfect world I would agree with you. The benefits fo education do not accrue to the parents but to the child, and even more to society as a whole. It is in the best interst of society to get the best possible education for every child.

The problem is that when you use the coercive power of the state to try and enforce equal educational outcomes, no one benefits.

The rich, as you say, already use private schools. The middle class are penalized because their children are forced into poor schools. The poor lose because the school systems lose public support as more parents opt for private schools. So who wins?

By forcing kids to attend schools outside their own neighborhoods you break down the bond between neighborhoods and their schools. The local school is no longer a neighborhood insttution, it's an instittution of the State that just happens to be located nearby.

No one gives a damn about the "State" but most epoeple care about their neighborhood. Cut that bond, and you lose one of the key pillars of support for local schools.

Keep schools local, and keep the students in their local schools. If some neighborhoods have better schools than others, so be it. Aspirational parents will try to get into a neighborhood that has good schools.

Then of course there's the whole point of a capitalist system, which works because of incentives. People will work hard to gain wealth in order to get better lives for themselves and their children, including moving to a better eighborhood with better schools. If you eliminate the incentive, you undermine the capitalist system which has proven to be the most efficient generator of wealth in human history. Of course, the problem with capitalism is that some people fail. This can be a hard thing to accept, which is why many people who are ruled more by compassion than reason tend toward liberalism.

Please explain who are (and, more importantly, who aren't) "aspirational parents." You seem to think you are ruled by reason. Why is it that I hear nothing but a considerable chip on your shoulder (emotion) and contempt (an emotion, not reason) for those who "fail" in a capitalist system? What is there about a successful preschool teacher (to take but one example) who works her [sic] brain and body at being the best educator she can be to the most vitally important class of students, setting them (or not) on a path toward perpetual curiosity and spirit of learning which makes her a "failure" who cannot afford to live in a middle class neighborhood herself, given the pittance paid to preschool teachers? What is the emotional reactionaryism that leads you to suggest this is about "removing incentives"? What prompts the disjunct between these two sentences of yours? "It is in the best interst of society to get the best possible education for every child. The problem is that when you use the coercive power of the state to try and enforce equal educational outcomes, no one benefits." So you would make going to school optional for children? Return to the days of child labor? It's the "coercive power of the state" isn't it which requires children to go to school at all? And where did you get the notion that any of this debate is about "enforcing equal education outcomes"? No one I know of is expecting, much less enforcing, equal outcomes. This is about equal playing fields, equal opportunity. Why do you rationalize the existence of unequal schooling opportunities at all? Why shouldn't every single child go to schools with, for example, equally small class sizes where teachers can actually teach rather than struggle with the inevitable gratuitous behavior management problems of overcrowding and where students, all students, can have comparable amounts of one-on-one time with their teachers? What I hear in your post is quite irrational, impassioned dismissiveness, even disdain, for those who "don't make it" with zero consideration of the reasons why many if not most of them don't. If you think your community's version of Donald Trump or Paris Hilton or Rush Limbaugh or Pat Robertson or Tom Cruise or Michael Jordan or has more "incentive" for his/her children to get ahead, to have better schooling, than your local preschool teacher or construction worker or gardener, then you're filling your tank with far more emotion than reason. Watch who you label irrational. And watch out for that binary thinking. Guess what? Compassion and reason are not mutually exclusive. Capitalism that isn't conscientious and doesn't realize that it is only as strong as its weakest link is not honest capitalism but a cover for greed.

Once again, this time with the confounded "p" commands inserted so this new system doesn't eliminate all my ¶s ...

Please explain who are (and, more importantly, who aren't) "aspirational parents."

You seem to think you are ruled by reason. Why is it that I hear nothing but a considerable chip on your shoulder (emotion) and contempt (an emotion, not reason) for those who "fail" in a capitalist system?

What is there about a successful preschool teacher (to take but one example) who works her [sic] brain and body at being the best educator she can be to the most vitally important class of students, setting them (or not) on a path toward perpetual curiosity and spirit of learning which makes her a "failure" who cannot afford to live in a middle class neighborhood herself, given the pittance paid to preschool teachers?

What is the emotional reactionaryism that leads you to suggest this is about "removing incentives"?

What prompts the disjunct between these two sentences of yours?

"It is in the best interst of society to get the best possible education for every child. The problem is that when you use the coercive power of the state to try and enforce equal educational outcomes, no one benefits."

So you would make going to school optional for children? Return to the days of child labor? It's the "coercive power of the state" isn't it which requires children to go to school at all?

And where did you get the notion that any of this debate is about "enforcing equal education outcomes"? No one I know of is expecting, much less enforcing, equal outcomes. This is about equal playing fields, equal opportunity. Why do you rationalize the existence of unequal schooling opportunities at all? Why shouldn't every single child go to schools with, for example, equally small class sizes where teachers can actually teach rather than struggle with the inevitable gratuitous behavior management problems of overcrowding and where students, all students, can have comparable amounts of one-on-one time with their teachers?

What I hear in your post is quite irrational, impassioned dismissiveness, even disdain, for those who "don't make it" with zero consideration of the reasons why many if not most of them don't.

If you think your community's version of Donald Trump or Paris Hilton or Rush Limbaugh or Pat Robertson or Tom Cruise or Michael Jordan or has more "incentive" for his/her children to get ahead, to have better schooling, than your local preschool teacher or construction worker or gardener, then you're filling your tank with far more emotion than reason. Watch who you label irrational. And watch out for that binary thinking. Guess what? Compassion and reason are not mutually exclusive.

Capitalism that isn't conscientious and doesn't realize that it is only as strong as its weakest link is not honest capitalism but a cover for greed.

and ps to the topposter here: "Leave us alone"?? Who exactly is "us"? What us vs. themism world in particular are you invoking here? You want to be left alone with what exactly? No educated work force at large capable of conscientiously packaging your foods, paving your roads, preschooling your kids, nursing your emergencies? Are you an island?

But this is one of the main reasons to do this. The whole idea is to make the government education unanswerable to anyone. You seriously think the leftists want local communities have any say on the schools? No, they want to have full control of the education, so they can brainwash the kids with all kinds of leftist crap.

Hi, Zinia -

Given that you posted your message 2 days ago, I won't bother to respond point by point, as this post will probably go unread.

But, I am curious what exactly in my post led you to believe I have either a chip on my shoulder or "contempt" for those who fail in a capitalist system. I have nothing of the kind. That's why I said such failures are one of the problems of capitalism, an imperfect system.

You say: "What I hear in your post is quite irrational, impassioned dismissiveness, even disdain, for those who "don't make it" with zero consideration of the reasons why many if not most of them don't." All I can say is, you hear what you want to hear. There is absolutely nothing in my post to support your assertion. Clearly, you my final comment regarding liberals (a pretty tame criticism) caused you to attribute to me attitudes that I not only did not convey but do not have. You are clearly someone who cares deeply about education, but apparently your own was a little weak in reading comprehension.

As for my comment about "aspirational" parents, surely you will agree that some people are more motivated than others to succeed - if not for themselves then for their children. Peple who aspire to success are more likely to acheive it than those who do not.

we are on this plan and I recently moved here from Baltimore Maryland. Our kids are bused from one side of town to the other and we have NO CHOICES. We are revolting against our school board. Our middle school children are bused an hour and a half plus every day when we have middle schools in our own backyard. Of the 4 middle schools in our city we are bused to the FARTHEST one and cross a major highway with commuter traffic to get there. RICHARD D. KAHLENBERG who is the brainchild of this plan is touting what a success we are in texas and we are miserable. We are all equally miserable and are begging not to be bused across town. Rich and poor. We want neighborhood schools and they will not allow it. So if things are not changed you can guess what will happen. The rich folks will go to the private or charter schools and the whole public system will be left in shambles.

In an ideal world all children would get a good education but that world does not exist.

Inner city schools are in the most crime ridden neighborhoods. Students and teachers exist in a state of lock down. It is a miserable environment and the school has a hard time attracting any teacher, much less a good teacher.

Children raised in chaotic homes torn apart by drug and alcohol abuse, domestic violence and criminal behavior are not prepared to sit and learn. No it is not the child's fault, no it is not fair, but guess what, the child is probably going to experience problems and putting the same child on a bus for an hour to a school in another neighborhood is not going to fix it.

Parents understand that during adolesence, a child's peer group can make the difference between risky antisocial behavior such as experimentation with drugs, and non risk. Parents understand that when you put their child in a class with the children of gang bangers, their child is being put at risk. Parents also understand that public schools cannot control or expel violent students and that you cannot frighten a gang banger with a detention. All of the rights will rest with the violent student, and there are no rights or protections for the law abiding students.

. The joke is that the wealty liberal parents who advocate this type of social engineering move to the wealty suburbs because the schools are "so good" code word for "all white"