(12-05-2012 03:02 PM)FanViaThresherSports09 Wrote:  

(12-05-2012 12:47 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(12-05-2012 10:13 AM)FanViaThresherSports09 Wrote:  

(12-04-2012 11:44 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  I'm getting a little lost here. Can you relate community support to income inequality? And what should be done to increase community and familial support in the underperforming school districts?

Sure. Wealthy families are often more involved in their children's schooling, for any number of reasons - they're more likely to have a stay-at-home parent; they're more likely to have jobs with hours that more or less mirror the school day (and more likely to have only one job), so that they can match their kids' schedules; speaking from personal experience, they're more likely to be assertive and inquisitive about their children's education in a way that many low income parents are not (and there are many reasons for this which would take a more than message board post to explain).

I guess we need to define "wealthy" for purposes of this discussion. I think we are reverting to stereotypes that include mansions and smoking jackets, Do you or anybody else have any data relating family income to two job families?

Most kids in the high achieving public schools come from middle class familes. The rich kids tend to go to private schools.

I think a lot of the middle class familes have two workers. My family did, when I had young children, my son's family does, most of the families I know both parents work, sometimes by necessity, sometimes by choice, and in some cases, because they jointly own and run a business. My wife chose to stay home until the youngest went to school, then she chose to go back to work. Her choices. I was running two businesses with lots of travel and going to grad school at night. Either way, we both stayed involved. It wasn't because we had lots of leisure and nothing better to do.

On the other hand, I think a lot of lower income families have only one worker - that is part of the reason they are in the lower economic group. Maybe Dad has two jobs, but often Mom doesn't. Sometimes neither has a job.

It is my experience that concerned parents will find ways to overcome obstacles. Certainly work schedules will prevent some from as much involvment as they would like, but I don't think it is a primary cause.

Quote:I don't have any ready answers for what we can do to increase community involvement in low-income schools, other than to increase the economic situation in low-income communities generally.

Sounds like you argeeing with Owl69 that what we need is to make everybody richer, not to squeeze the ends toward the middle.

On second thought, maybe not.

Nothing much to say here, other than to point out that all I was trying to do was offer several explanations for why schools in poor communities might need more money. I've done so, and I might as well point out that most of what I've said has gone un-refuted. If you'd like to discuss any of those points, I'll be happy to continue the conversation.

I have yet to see anything that supports the idea that reducing income inequality would increase parental involvement.

But I don't expect to, so if you're done, I'm done.

(12-05-2012 06:26 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(12-05-2012 03:02 PM)FanViaThresherSports09 Wrote:  

(12-05-2012 12:47 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(12-05-2012 10:13 AM)FanViaThresherSports09 Wrote:  

(12-04-2012 11:44 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  I'm getting a little lost here. Can you relate community support to income inequality? And what should be done to increase community and familial support in the underperforming school districts?

Sure. Wealthy families are often more involved in their children's schooling, for any number of reasons - they're more likely to have a stay-at-home parent; they're more likely to have jobs with hours that more or less mirror the school day (and more likely to have only one job), so that they can match their kids' schedules; speaking from personal experience, they're more likely to be assertive and inquisitive about their children's education in a way that many low income parents are not (and there are many reasons for this which would take a more than message board post to explain).

I guess we need to define "wealthy" for purposes of this discussion. I think we are reverting to stereotypes that include mansions and smoking jackets, Do you or anybody else have any data relating family income to two job families?

Most kids in the high achieving public schools come from middle class familes. The rich kids tend to go to private schools.

I think a lot of the middle class familes have two workers. My family did, when I had young children, my son's family does, most of the families I know both parents work, sometimes by necessity, sometimes by choice, and in some cases, because they jointly own and run a business. My wife chose to stay home until the youngest went to school, then she chose to go back to work. Her choices. I was running two businesses with lots of travel and going to grad school at night. Either way, we both stayed involved. It wasn't because we had lots of leisure and nothing better to do.

On the other hand, I think a lot of lower income families have only one worker - that is part of the reason they are in the lower economic group. Maybe Dad has two jobs, but often Mom doesn't. Sometimes neither has a job.

It is my experience that concerned parents will find ways to overcome obstacles. Certainly work schedules will prevent some from as much involvment as they would like, but I don't think it is a primary cause.

Quote:I don't have any ready answers for what we can do to increase community involvement in low-income schools, other than to increase the economic situation in low-income communities generally.

Sounds like you argeeing with Owl69 that what we need is to make everybody richer, not to squeeze the ends toward the middle.

On second thought, maybe not.

Nothing much to say here, other than to point out that all I was trying to do was offer several explanations for why schools in poor communities might need more money. I've done so, and I might as well point out that most of what I've said has gone un-refuted. If you'd like to discuss any of those points, I'll be happy to continue the conversation.

I have yet to see anything that supports the idea that reducing income inequality would increase parental involvement.

But I don't expect to, so if you're done, I'm done.

Sorry - I thought we were talking about school finance. I must have misinterpreted the point of your post about school spending in Washington, D.C., I guess, so I'll just consider that conversation over.

I don't recall making any claims about reduced income inequality leading to more parental involvement (or if I did, I certainly didn't mean to imply a direct cause-effect); I obviously think that poor communities would have more parental involvement if they weren't so poor (based mostly on my three semesters of educational policy classes and year of teaching in an underprivileged neighborhood), but that can happen whether inequality is reduced or not.

(12-05-2012 06:51 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(12-05-2012 06:22 AM)JOwl Wrote:  

(12-04-2012 08:46 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(12-04-2012 07:11 AM)JOwl Wrote:  

(12-03-2012 12:08 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  1. Better public education certainly is a good goal, but somebody wil always be attending the worst school in the nation. They are not doomed - they have paths to success, if they will only take them. I know, I had an excellent example of this - my Dad. I doubt you could find many people starting off life more disadvantaged than he was. But he found his way out. PM me if you want details.
2. Once again, people have opportunities if they will take advantage of them. Going back to my Dad, he was raised in one of the lowest income communities in the nation, a minority-majority city, in the depths of the Depression. Not all of us start out in the most hygienic place or the finest school. So what. We all have an equal opportunity to what is needed to get out, to go from rags to riches, or in some cases, from riches to rags. That is what equal opportunity means, not we all have to have the exact same starting point.
3. Income inequality is based on results. Some people end up making more money than others. I see the results coming primarily (not solely) from each individual's choices and efforts. Do accidents of birth help some more than others? Sure. That is why there is a show called Keeping up with the Kardashians and not one called Keeping up with OptimisticOwl. I was not lucky enough to be born female, beautiful, and the child of a famous and wealthy dad. But I dealt with it. We don't all have to end up the same, just as we don't all have to have the same assets or be the same height. I wish I had Cam Newton's athletic talent. I wish I had Taylor Swift's ability to sing and write music. But I don't. How can we equalize that? They both make a lot more than me. Not fair. I had to go to a little country school. Bet it wasn't as good as the one you went to. I was disadvantaged compared to those in the big city schools, and boy did it show when I got to Rice.

Interesting that you see opportunities as equal. I'll flip your question a bit -- at what point in the past do you feel the US achieved equality of opportunity? I think we would probably agree that we weren't there prior to Emancipation. So when did we hit it?

I think your question depends on a different interpretation of equality that what OO intends. Since I objected to what I consider to be his doing that to my post on the Bailiff issue, it is only fair that I object to your doing that to him here.

How so? What does OO intend by "equality of opportunity" that makes my question impossible?

If that's not obvious to you from the context, then I have no interest in taking on the project of explaining it to you. I can explain it to you, but I can't make you understand it. Perhaps OO would like to take on that project, perhaps not.

Well, I certainly appreciate you taking the opportunity to interject nothing while condescending to me.

Let me ask you this. Would it be possible for OO to answer the following questions:?
"In your opinion, do we have equality of opportunity in the U.S. now?"
"In your opinion, did we have equality of opportunity in the U.S. in 1850?"

(12-05-2012 06:57 PM)FanViaThresherSports09 Wrote:  

(12-05-2012 06:26 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(12-05-2012 03:02 PM)FanViaThresherSports09 Wrote:  

(12-05-2012 12:47 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(12-05-2012 10:13 AM)FanViaThresherSports09 Wrote:  Sure. Wealthy families are often more involved in their children's schooling, for any number of reasons - they're more likely to have a stay-at-home parent; they're more likely to have jobs with hours that more or less mirror the school day (and more likely to have only one job), so that they can match their kids' schedules; speaking from personal experience, they're more likely to be assertive and inquisitive about their children's education in a way that many low income parents are not (and there are many reasons for this which would take a more than message board post to explain).

I guess we need to define "wealthy" for purposes of this discussion. I think we are reverting to stereotypes that include mansions and smoking jackets, Do you or anybody else have any data relating family income to two job families?

Most kids in the high achieving public schools come from middle class familes. The rich kids tend to go to private schools.

I think a lot of the middle class familes have two workers. My family did, when I had young children, my son's family does, most of the families I know both parents work, sometimes by necessity, sometimes by choice, and in some cases, because they jointly own and run a business. My wife chose to stay home until the youngest went to school, then she chose to go back to work. Her choices. I was running two businesses with lots of travel and going to grad school at night. Either way, we both stayed involved. It wasn't because we had lots of leisure and nothing better to do.

On the other hand, I think a lot of lower income families have only one worker - that is part of the reason they are in the lower economic group. Maybe Dad has two jobs, but often Mom doesn't. Sometimes neither has a job.

It is my experience that concerned parents will find ways to overcome obstacles. Certainly work schedules will prevent some from as much involvment as they would like, but I don't think it is a primary cause.

Quote:I don't have any ready answers for what we can do to increase community involvement in low-income schools, other than to increase the economic situation in low-income communities generally.

Sounds like you argeeing with Owl69 that what we need is to make everybody richer, not to squeeze the ends toward the middle.

On second thought, maybe not.

Nothing much to say here, other than to point out that all I was trying to do was offer several explanations for why schools in poor communities might need more money. I've done so, and I might as well point out that most of what I've said has gone un-refuted. If you'd like to discuss any of those points, I'll be happy to continue the conversation.

I have yet to see anything that supports the idea that reducing income inequality would increase parental involvement.

But I don't expect to, so if you're done, I'm done.

Sorry - I thought we were talking about school finance. I must have misinterpreted the point of your post about school spending in Washington, D.C., I guess, so I'll just consider that conversation over.

I don't recall making any claims about reduced income inequality leading to more parental involvement (or if I did, I certainly didn't mean to imply a direct cause-effect); I obviously think that poor communities would have more parental involvement if they weren't so poor (based mostly on my three semesters of educational policy classes and year of teaching in an underprivileged neighborhood), but that can happen whether inequality is reduced or not.

Well, my questions about inequality led to your talking about school finance as means of making more equal the opportunity to earn more money, or at least that's what I took your responses to mean. See the posts leading up to #562 and immediately following.

I really would rather have a response to my questions about inequality than to debate school finance.

(12-05-2012 09:42 PM)JOwl Wrote:  

(12-05-2012 06:51 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(12-05-2012 06:22 AM)JOwl Wrote:  

(12-04-2012 08:46 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(12-04-2012 07:11 AM)JOwl Wrote:  Interesting that you see opportunities as equal. I'll flip your question a bit -- at what point in the past do you feel the US achieved equality of opportunity? I think we would probably agree that we weren't there prior to Emancipation. So when did we hit it?

I think your question depends on a different interpretation of equality that what OO intends. Since I objected to what I consider to be his doing that to my post on the Bailiff issue, it is only fair that I object to your doing that to him here.

How so? What does OO intend by "equality of opportunity" that makes my question impossible?

If that's not obvious to you from the context, then I have no interest in taking on the project of explaining it to you. I can explain it to you, but I can't make you understand it. Perhaps OO would like to take on that project, perhaps not.

Well, I certainly appreciate you taking the opportunity to interject nothing while condescending to me.

Let me ask you this. Would it be possible for OO to answer the following questions:?
"In your opinion, do we have equality of opportunity in the U.S. now?"
"In your opinion, did we have equality of opportunity in the U.S. in 1850?"

Sorry, JOwl, missed your earlier question. I will answer this for Owl69+, yes it is possible. Not only is it possible, but I will answer them.

1. yes, pretty much.
2. only for white men not of Irish origin, so no.

As for when this happened, it has been happening since the American Revolution with improvement in fits and spurts, and probably reached the "pretty much" level sometime in the last 25 years.

(12-05-2012 12:47 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  I think a lot of the middle class familes have two workers. My family did, when I had young children, my son's family does, most of the families I know both parents work, sometimes by necessity, sometimes by choice, and in some cases, because they jointly own and run a business. My wife chose to stay home until the youngest went to school, then she chose to go back to work. Her choices. I was running two businesses with lots of travel and going to grad school at night. Either way, we both stayed involved. It wasn't because we had lots of leisure and nothing better to do.

On the other hand, I think a lot of lower income families have only one worker - that is part of the reason they are in the lower economic group. Maybe Dad has two jobs, but often Mom doesn't. Sometimes neither has a job.

Perhaps more importantly, middle class families are more likely to have two adults period.

(12-05-2012 01:59 PM)Barrett Wrote:  I know this is just one data point, but with respect to a child's development and education, it seems common sense to me that growing up with both parents and some money is markedly better than having a single parent and none. And growing up middle or upper-middle class is better for development/education than growing up poor. (Socio-economics of the parents, in almost all the literature, is cited as the biggest predictor of academic success of a child.)

Absolutely! -- and rightly so. It would be strange indeed if growing up in a household characterized by mainstream success did not correlate with future mainstream success -- i.e. if mainstream success were entirely genetic or truly random.