Clueless Article On Busing

[dann]

So can racism, but in the case of filled bladders and long bus rides, children can learn to take their precautions and pee before they get on the bus. In the case of racism, however, there appears to be nothing you can do about it. Little kids just have to learn to live with it because:

Utopian ideas are wonderful - especially if you add some butterflies and unicorns.

 

[HansMustermann]

So now we're at it being concern about the poor black kids being bussed? Because throughout recorded history nothing has been more of a common denominator of 'why I should keep my privileges and you shouldn't get anything you want above your station' arguments than the paternalistic 'for your own good.'

 

[Meadmaker]

So now we're at it being concern about the poor black kids being bussed? Because throughout recorded history nothing has been more of a common denominator of 'why I should keep my privileges and you shouldn't get anything you want above your station' arguments than the paternalistic 'for your own good.'

If the only bussing that occurred was voluntary, I don't think there would be an issue. If there's a school close to where a kid lives, he should be able to attend that school. If his parents would prefer that he went to a different school, then it would be awesome if the school authorities made that option available, and even more awesome if they provided transportation to get there. However, if the family lives close to a school, but someone else decides that society would be better served if the kid took a long bus ride to some other, more distant, school, then whoever made that decision should be thrown out of office.

ETA: I just read about the Howard County Maryland plan. It isn't really a "busing" plan at all. Basically, in that county, some schools are overcrowded, and some are underutilized. The plan would move kids out of the overcrowded schools and into the underutilized schools, so that the buildings are used more efficiently. In some cases, that means sending people to a new school, and not necessarily the one closest to their homes. However, it involves redrawing district lines, not sending kids to school in different districts.

Where the controversy arises is that in the course of drawing the new districts, the powers that be deliberately included economic diversity in the goals of the redistricting. This rankles some parents who bought homes near good schools, only to find that their kids won't be going there.

In my opinion, fixing the school utilization issues seems pretty critical, but after that shortening the commute time ought to be the most important criterion used for redistricting, but from the articles I've read, there's controversy about whether the new district plan actually increases the commute time. More research required.....if I'm in the mood for it.

 

[bluesjnr]

No, you don't.

What?

 

[Lukraak_Sisser]

Maybe not have the district nonsense where the rich can ensure their taxes ONLY go to the schools of their own children and distribute the money to schools evenly based upon the number of students? That would solve a lot of problems.

 

[Meadmaker]

Maybe not have the district nonsense where the rich can ensure their taxes ONLY go to the schools of their own children and distribute the money to schools evenly based upon the number of students? That would solve a lot of problems.

Be careful what you wish for.

Here in Michigan, we do have a partial state element that is intended to somewhat equalize funding for school districts. To be honest, I don't know anything about how it works, but I know that Detroit schools are not funded entirely by Detroit, and I suspect the same is true everywhere in the US. However, some of my local tax dollars go specifically to my local school.

Periodically, the citizens of my town have to go to the polls to approve those taxes. The school districts routinely send out info about how important these things are and that citizens should vote to continue paying taxes to support local schools, or sometimes even raise taxes to support local schools. Those appeals usually pass.

People are willing to pay taxes to support local schools.

Take that local funding away, and what happens? Then, the state legislature would have to say to the people of the state, "Please approve more money for schools all over the state." People are less likely to support that. They don't see the personal connection as closely.

The end result of trying to make all schools equal is that the net funding will decrease. So, all schools will get equal funding, but it will be, on average, less well funded than it was before.

 

[theprestige]

Maybe not have the district nonsense where the rich can ensure their taxes ONLY go to the schools of their own children and distribute the money to schools evenly based upon the number of students? That would solve a lot of problems.

How is it nonsense for residents of a community to democratically vote to tax themselves to provide funding for a school in their community?

Here's what I think is nonsense: "I need money. You have money. I need your money!"

 

[Minoosh]

Studies I have seen indicate almost half of the funding for schools comes from local taxes.

Generally, property taxes.

Integration of underemployed low income earners into more affluent communities will immediately result in a lower per capita income level.

No, because the taxes are based on property valuations, not earnings. And also, busing is for integrating schools, not communities.

That means an immediate per capita decrease in funding for schools in that area.

Not as far as I know, because the taxes are based on assets, not income.

Where do the integrated people (either low or high income earners) immediately obtain jobs and the new skills to do those jobs in their new community?

Unless I'm missing something, the plan is to integrate schools, not communities.

Housing in the more upscale communities where they can afford more funding of their education systems will also cost more. Therefore, the cost of living will be higher for those new people integrated into that site community. Where does that money come from?

Please, if you can cite examples of cities trying to forcibly relocate people into richer communities, go ahead. To my knowledge, the idea is to integrate schools, not communities.

 

[Lukraak_Sisser]

How is it nonsense for residents of a community to democratically vote to tax themselves to provide funding for a school in their community?

Here's what I think is nonsense: "I need money. You have money. I need your money!"

Because it is creating a form of aristocracy where your chances in life are determined by your birth rather than your skills.

Taxes for education should be organized nationwide where the people of the whole nation, not just parts of it, determine democratically how much they want allocated for education with that money then spread across the country, ensuring equal access to education.

 

[rockinkt]

Yeah, we call that enacting social change for the common good. Universal health care might force some to take it on the chops for a bit, too.

Glad your kind of thinking didn't prevail during the American Civil War, or the World Wars, for that matter. Some utopias can be gotten closer to.

Seriously?
That's all you got? Some sort of thinly veiled personal attack?
Why not give me some actual specific solutions to the actual problems I have pointed out?
The idea that governments can just throw money at problems and create solutions is not always a viable solution. Sooner or later the piper has to be paid.

BTW - I am a Canadian so I already have universal type healthcare.
The US civil wars have nothing to do with the conversation but since it appears you are not dealing with reality - why not mention the average temperature on Venus as a comparative factor to the colonization of Jupiter?

 

[rockinkt]

Yeah...howzabout evening out funding the school districts and integrating the communities as a whole instead? Always focusing on the wrong end of the problem.

Generally, property taxes.

No, because the taxes are based on property valuations, not earnings. And also, busing is for integrating schools, not communities.

Not as far as I know, because the taxes are based on assets, not income.

Unless I'm missing something, the plan is to integrate schools, not communities.
Please, if you can cite examples of cities trying to forcibly relocate people into richer communities, go ahead. To my knowledge, the idea is to integrate schools, not communities.

I was answering Thermal's post on integrating communities not just bussing to create integration in schools.
Much of your post has nothing to do with that discussion.

BTW - I know that property taxes are not based on income - but you are missing the the point: How does one just move into a more expensive house in a more upscale neighborhood without a corresponding increase in income?
If housing is developed to meet the lower income integration the property tax levy on the social housing will have to be correspondingly lower. That will decrease the per capita funding.

 

[rockinkt]

Because it is creating a form of aristocracy where your chances in life are determined by your birth rather than your skills.

Taxes for education should be organized nationwide where the people of the whole nation, not just parts of it, determine democratically how much they want allocated for education with that money then spread across the country, ensuring equal access to education.

Ah yes...Redistribute the poverty.

Please provide an example of a very large country with the population and income disparities that the US has as an example of where this has worked before.

 

[Lukraak_Sisser]

Ah yes...Redistribute the poverty.

Please provide an example of a very large country with the population and income disparities that the US has as an example of where this has worked before.

Europe. We had the same disparities in the 1800's early 1900's and we managed to work our way out.

It would also be the capitalist smart thing to do. How much actual talent in the US is now wasted because they are black, sorry, poor while incompetents are put in charge of large corporations because of nepotism?

The US is rich enough it could ensure good education for everyone without removing quality.

 

[Brainster]

Please, if you can cite examples of cities trying to forcibly relocate people into richer communities, go ahead. To my knowledge, the idea is to integrate schools, not communities.

There is a push to do both, and again, the goal is not unreasonable. Many communities use exclusionary zoning laws to prevent low-income housing. For example, my hometown in NJ required lot sizes no smaller than 1/2 acre (and one neighboring town required 2 full acres). This effectively prevented low-income housing.

The state supreme court ruled in the Mount Laurel decision that cities and municipalities had to use their zoning laws to encourage some low- and moderate-income housing. If this is done responsibly, there is no reason for it to have negative consequences for the local communities (and plenty of reason to suspect it will have salutary effects for the lower-income residents). Of course once you put developers in the equation, responsibility sometimes goes out the window and there have been proposals to build 1,000-unit apartment complexes in small suburban communities.

 

[Thermal]

I was answering Thermal's post on integrating communities not just bussing to create integration in schools.
Much of your post has nothing to do with that discussion.

BTW - I know that property taxes are not based on income - but you are missing the the point: How does one just move into a more expensive house in a more upscale neighborhood without a corresponding increase in income?
If housing is developed to meet the lower income integration the property tax levy on the social housing will have to be correspondingly lower. That will decrease the per capita funding.

Yes, and I already addressed that. Americans have historically and willingly taken personal financial hits for a greater good. The Civil War, which you didn't seem to get, is one example. We are quite willing to sacrifice for social benefit when motivated. What is needed now is sufficient motivation, which I think busing misses. Busing is a lame band aid measure. Like pulling down statues, people feel good about the progress while actually accomplishing next to nothing. Maybe some toothless symbolism. The problem remains unscathed.

Oh, and it's not a personal attack. Its an ideological one. Your argument is 'sounds expensive, so ridicule it as utopian, and add some unicorns'. I disagree. For a nation as wealthy as the US, it is do-able.

I support Universal Health Care, even though I am currently covered by an excellent plan which will likely decrease in quality if UHC is adopted. Many of us are willing to take the financial hit for the greater good.

The bottom line is that those of us who are doing ok need to give back to those with rougher breaks. My town has a somewhat staggering average home value. We also have subsidized . housing to integrate those who ordinarily couldn't afford it into the community. Sufficiently motivated, it is not the dismissable utopian fantasy you claim.

 

[rockinkt]

Europe. We had the same disparities in the 1800's early 1900's and we managed to work our way out.

It would also be the capitalist smart thing to do. How much actual talent in the US is now wasted because they are black, sorry, poor while incompetents are put in charge of large corporations because of nepotism?

The US is rich enough it could ensure good education for everyone without removing quality.

Europe????
Hahahaha! Pull the other one!

 

[dann]

You mean your "butterflies and unicorns" USA?!

 

[rockinkt]

You mean your "butterflies and unicorns" USA?!

?????
I am Canadian and my question was asking Lukraak_Sisser to provide an example of a country as large as the US that has achieved complete integration of education between rich and poor.
I know that we in Canada have not achieved it and my many travels in European countries - as well as any quick google - have shown me that the European Union certainly has not achieved it either.

 

[Lukraak_Sisser]

I never said we had complete integration.
Just that we do have far better integration than the US

 

[rockinkt]

I never said we had complete integration.Just that we do have far better integration than the US

You certainly implied it as my question was very specific.
Many countries are doing better than the US - but that means little as the US is huge both by geographic size and population. It also has 50 states that control most things like education within their state boundaries.
Butterfly and unicorn utopian fantasies do not work well when confronted with reality.