<p>Hereshoping, respectfully I say, your comparison of Senator Obama to Rev. Sharpton; what rot!</p>
<p>Gosh, I thought I said “capitulation.”</p>
<p>We’ll see if he stays on this track, or gets off of it.</p>
<p>I hope he gets off of it. That’s my personal preference. I am sick to death of that kind of politics. I don’t like the Edwards “two Americas” either. I didn’t vote for Gore because of his divisive race-bating politics. I do hope that we are free to criticize Obama as much any other potential presidential candidate.</p>
<p>Not to mention that his statements Monday directly contradicted many of his earlier statements of the need for the country to unite around solutions to the problems of African-Americans in this country, which I applauded.</p>
<p>“Obama is merely pointing out the fact to a white majority that they are creating conditions for a perfect storm of racial anger.”</p>
<p>Really? This sounds like traditional 1960’s victim-hood - it’s always someone else’s fault. I thought we had gotten over that and started to accept the concept of personal responsibility. I know that at least some black leaders have started to preach that message.</p>
<p>Is it the fault of the white majority that the rate of births to blacks to unwed mothers far exceeds the traditional nuclear family? Is it the fault of the white majority that inner city kids are not encouraged by their families to do well in school, schools at least here in New Jersey that have received HUGE amounts of state aid from “the white majority”. Is it the fault of the white majority that drug use is rampant in the inner city, making it a hell hole for the kids? </p>
<p>If this was Obama’s message, then I too am sorely disappointed in him. I thought he was much better than that.</p>
<p>“Our poor school districts are swimming in laptops, 16 kids in a class, new fields, fancy gyms, specialists and aides galore.”</p>
<p>Well, that certainly doesn’t describe the poor school districts in my city… What city is that anyway?</p>
<p>hereshoping: does that mean you voted for Bush, whose campaign was push-polling in South Carolina to make sure everyone knew that McCain had a brown colored child during the Republican primary. If you think Gore was race-baiting, I don’t think you know what that term means. </p>
<p>weenie: our poor schools aren’t swimming in laptops or experiencing decrease in student/teacher ratios either - they are losing funding because they are “failing”, which, of course, NCLB was designed to do - to fail public schools so they would lose funding, to make people clamor for vouchers so they can send our taxpayer money to religious schools.</p>
<p>Some religious schools do much better than publics in the same bad neighborhoods.</p>
<p>^ Barrons: I know this is off topic, but how do you know that?</p>
<p>Know what–gangs or schools?</p>
<p>Here’s gangs</p>
<p><a href=“http://www.streetgangs.com/academic/gangfinance.pdf[/url]”>http://www.streetgangs.com/academic/gangfinance.pdf</a></p>
<p>Schools</p>
<p>FF, I don’t see how the logic of “personal responsibility” and the REALITY that our nation apparently lacks the will to rebuild the poorest and most devastated parts of NO, post Katrina, are mutually exclusive. The parts of NO where those who have always had plenty of political capital reside, were not nearly so effected by the storm, nevertheless, they are the ones that have received the greatest help. How many thousands of dead bodies still remain trapped in destroyed structures to this day, waiting to receive a humane and proper burial? Why are the conditions in Baghdad of more importance than those in New Orleans? I don’t see how asking such questions is “race baiting”.</p>
<p>FF, like poetsheart I have only one response to your comment: Katrina. I’m only amazed those riots Obama fears haven’t happened already.</p>
<p>irishmom: I based my conclusion about Gore on what I heard come out of his own mouth. That is first and foremost how I judge candidates. I don’t usually have that much time to get down and dirty into the blogosphere.</p>
<p>“Bush has pushed the No Child Left Behind program that has all schools at least focused on closing the “achievement gap” and providing more resources to those in poor schools or moving them to better ones”</p>
<p>Barrons, because of NCLB, poor kids here who live in poor areas are getting <em>fewer</em> services. They used to live in Title I (aka Chapter 1) schools where federal $ was spent to provide them with smaller classes and more attention. After NCLB, the school district offered the parents free busing to move their kids out of Title I schools and into what they billed as better schools with higher testing. Well, we all know the higher testing is because the kids came from more educated, better-off families, not that the teachers or schools were any better. So these poor, low-testing kids got transferred into the rich schools where their low testing is offset by all the high testers. They get fewer services and rank lower in the class-- but the school testing is better for the school system.</p>
<p>Oh, one other thing about NCLB… Apparently, it requires special ed goals to be tied into the <em>current year’s</em> curriculum for the child, not remedial work. Well, I was told by one special ed teacher here that that means they have to write goals for severely handicapped middle schoolers (kids who cannot order a McDs meal) that say the kids will “access Algebra at their level” because the regular curriculum introduces Algebra to 7th and 8th graders. </p>
<p>“Some religious schools do much better than publics in the same bad neighborhoods.”</p>
<p>Yes, but religious schools don’t necessarily have the same population. They are less likely to take special ed kids. They are less likely to have kids whose families don’t care and they are able to expel children with discipline problems. I am glad there are religious schools doing good work in our cities but that doesn’t necessarily mean that the public schools in the same neighborhoods aren’t doing good work.</p>
<p>It has been pretty conclusively shown that the religious schools do better even with the worst student backgrounds. The Unions are just throwing up as many objections as they can muster. Special Ed kids arent tested. Why–they insist on classroom discipline. Something publics are afraid to do.</p>
<p>Lowell, Lawrence, Fall River, Boston, MA, for example. </p>
<p>Chapter 70 state aid has basically funded poorly performing public schools in poor districts, so that they receive millions of dollars more in funding than towns of “higher wealth”. Other towns’ contribution to public education is 85% property tax, with very little coming from the state.</p>
<p>States which have more equitable funding, or do not fund their public schools with mainly property taxes do not have this issue. This issue is ten times worse since Romney cut aid to towns in 2002, except in cities or towns like those mentioned above, where things have actually improved quite a lot.</p>
<p>“It has been pretty conclusively shown that the religious schools do better even with the worst student backgrounds. The Unions are just throwing up as many objections as they can muster. Special Ed kids arent tested. Why–they insist on classroom discipline. Something publics are afraid to do.”</p>
<p>No, you’re talking socioeconomic background. I’m talking motivation. Parents who care send their kids to religious schools. Public schools have kids whose parents care and kids whose parents don’t care. Once you reach middle and high school, private schools are less likely to have kids who don’t care. Public schools <em>have</em> to take everyone. And NCLB does test and affect special ed kids.</p>
<p>Hereshoping, I guess you meant to say ‘Al Gore Sr.’ and his Jim Crow sensibilities when the 1964 Civil Rights Act was making its way through Congress. Have you read any newspapers since the 1970s? LOL, I don’t think Al Jr’s worst enemy would characterize him with the obviously loaded term ‘race baiter,’ whatever it is supposed to mean.</p>
<p>Care to explain why you used that term?</p>
<p>Here is just one example, during the last week of his campaign, November 4, 2000, when speaking at an African American church in Pittsburgh, PA:</p>
<p>
</p>
<p><a href=“CNN.com - Transcripts”>CNN.com - Transcripts;
<p>Btw, there appears to be an error in this transcript–the entire transcript is obviously of Gore, though at one point the text says “BUSH.”</p>
<p>So when Gore accurately describes a strictly constructionist view of the Constitution, that’s race baiting. </p>
<p>I actually try to judge candidates by their actions, not their words - anyone can mis-speak or phrase things in a way that leaves one open to interpretation, (and I certainly hope Bush supporters will agree with me on that), and others have already said it: Katrina gave us a whopping insight into the Bush administration and its views on race and poor people.</p>
<p>2collegewego–don’t believe the lies from the teacher’s unions. They have adjusted for all that in various studies.</p>
<p>The first year NYS did high stakes testing a number of the private schools participated. At least in our town some religious schools did much worse, the parochial schools did about the same as the middling elementary school in our town. I don’t remember if any of the pricier private schools participated. None of the religious schools ever participated again after that first year. I wonder why?</p>
<p>I don’t think that’s race baiting. I think that’s an obvious example of why none of us (including Bush) really want a strict constructionist.</p>