4 ms·

Yes. Services used only or mainly by the poor, tend to be poor.

awinder 12y ago
But public education is not a service used primarily by the poor unless you have an extremely broad definition of poor. I believe the figure is around 10% of children are in private education.
- seanmcdirmid 12y ago
  Education is segregated in the states by rich and poor districts; it is a felony to enroll your kid in the wrong school.
  - iends 12y ago
    This is dishonest. Education is segregated by geographic proximity to school in the states. Of course, poor people live in poor areas and rich people live in rich areas so there is a strong correlation. Within a given school system, which is at the county level in this state (and I think most states), the same amount of tax money is generally spent per student so the rich schools get the same amount of the poor schools. The rich schools just have parents and PTAs that can collect more money than the poor schools. Is there a good solution though? I've seen kids bused across town to try and fix this. Of course if you're the family who is getting bused across town to go to a worse school you're angry, but if you're moving to a better school you're probably pretty happy. Other counties have school choice plans where you can pick your school from a small list and they hope that it evens out (Hint: It doesn't). Both options suck. What is better? Do other countries provide funding at the national level so that poor counties can educate at the same level as rich ones? In America, that'd probably require a change to the constitution.
    - seanmcdirmid 12y ago
      You are either igonorant or are being dishonest. Most states don't have county-level school districts; and definitely heavily populated ones do not. The district is either rich or poor. Example: mercer island is just across I90 from Seattle in king county, and is one of the richest districts in the nation (since mercer island is rich). The PTA BS is just made up libertarian propaganda (blame the poor people for being poor). Bussing solves racial disparity within a district, not economic disparity. Course, these often correspond but not always. Most first world countries fund educations out of the federal budget so it is more equitable; course, the libertarians would call that socialist, but you reap what you sow.
      - iends 12y ago
        I live in the 10th most populated state and our school districts are at the county level. I know the 24th most populated state also has districts at the county level. I tried to find statistics based on state, but could not find any data. (A quick google seems to imply that CA, NY, and WA do not do it based on county, but it's hard to say that most states do with only 5 measurements.) I'm not really sure why your posts are so angry about this topic, but your original assertion was that schools were segregated by wealth, which is obviously not how are schools districts are devised. I understand that your jaded worldview may keep you from accepting this fact.
        seanmcdirmid 12y ago
        School districts and towns that they correspond to are often setup explicitly to prevent equitable distribution of resources. It is very human nature to do that in the "got mine get lost" way. property taxes are just s bad way at it (and WA does much better than most states).
        deleted 12y ago
        [deleted]
  - awinder 12y ago
    So you're really hitting on the different qualities that can exist inside of public education here, and it's definitely a state-by-state issue (although universally I'd say there are systemic differences between the quality of public urban education vs. suburban vs. rural). While that's definitely a topic of concern and a big problem, the fact remains that that is still publicly funded education. "Rich districts" are still funded by state & county tax funding, where those tax payers are directly taking advantage of their tax dollars at work. My objection was just this notion that public education is just some fringe social benefit for the poor, because outside of the mega-wealthy, its one of the few places in government that society is very deeply invested.
    - seanmcdirmid 12y ago
      There is thst: society benefits from educated kids, but we've managed to create a system segregated by socioeconomic factors that tend to inhibit social mobility, which then describes why the US can simultaneously have the best and worst schools in the developed world at the same time.

But public education is not a service used primarily by the poor unless you have an extremely broad definition of poor. I believe the figure is around 10% of children are in private education.

seanmcdirmid 12y ago
Education is segregated in the states by rich and poor districts; it is a felony to enroll your kid in the wrong school.
- iends 12y ago
  This is dishonest. Education is segregated by geographic proximity to school in the states. Of course, poor people live in poor areas and rich people live in rich areas so there is a strong correlation. Within a given school system, which is at the county level in this state (and I think most states), the same amount of tax money is generally spent per student so the rich schools get the same amount of the poor schools. The rich schools just have parents and PTAs that can collect more money than the poor schools. Is there a good solution though? I've seen kids bused across town to try and fix this. Of course if you're the family who is getting bused across town to go to a worse school you're angry, but if you're moving to a better school you're probably pretty happy. Other counties have school choice plans where you can pick your school from a small list and they hope that it evens out (Hint: It doesn't). Both options suck. What is better? Do other countries provide funding at the national level so that poor counties can educate at the same level as rich ones? In America, that'd probably require a change to the constitution.
  - seanmcdirmid 12y ago
    You are either igonorant or are being dishonest. Most states don't have county-level school districts; and definitely heavily populated ones do not. The district is either rich or poor. Example: mercer island is just across I90 from Seattle in king county, and is one of the richest districts in the nation (since mercer island is rich). The PTA BS is just made up libertarian propaganda (blame the poor people for being poor). Bussing solves racial disparity within a district, not economic disparity. Course, these often correspond but not always. Most first world countries fund educations out of the federal budget so it is more equitable; course, the libertarians would call that socialist, but you reap what you sow.
    - iends 12y ago
      I live in the 10th most populated state and our school districts are at the county level. I know the 24th most populated state also has districts at the county level. I tried to find statistics based on state, but could not find any data. (A quick google seems to imply that CA, NY, and WA do not do it based on county, but it's hard to say that most states do with only 5 measurements.) I'm not really sure why your posts are so angry about this topic, but your original assertion was that schools were segregated by wealth, which is obviously not how are schools districts are devised. I understand that your jaded worldview may keep you from accepting this fact.
      - seanmcdirmid 12y ago
        School districts and towns that they correspond to are often setup explicitly to prevent equitable distribution of resources. It is very human nature to do that in the "got mine get lost" way. property taxes are just s bad way at it (and WA does much better than most states).
        deleted 12y ago
        [deleted]
- awinder 12y ago
  So you're really hitting on the different qualities that can exist inside of public education here, and it's definitely a state-by-state issue (although universally I'd say there are systemic differences between the quality of public urban education vs. suburban vs. rural). While that's definitely a topic of concern and a big problem, the fact remains that that is still publicly funded education. "Rich districts" are still funded by state & county tax funding, where those tax payers are directly taking advantage of their tax dollars at work. My objection was just this notion that public education is just some fringe social benefit for the poor, because outside of the mega-wealthy, its one of the few places in government that society is very deeply invested.
  - seanmcdirmid 12y ago
    There is thst: society benefits from educated kids, but we've managed to create a system segregated by socioeconomic factors that tend to inhibit social mobility, which then describes why the US can simultaneously have the best and worst schools in the developed world at the same time.