HuskerDave wrote: DTO Luv wrote:
HuskerDave wrote:[quote="DeWalt"][quote="Anonymous"]and what exactly is 'tested better' ? Realizing too... even the 'South High of Millard'... is no... well, 'South High'. ;)
Westside and Millard schools relentlessly push their students to "test well." But that does not mean said students think well, or are smart. It just means that they've been relentlessly pushed to "test well."
Keep in mind, too, that most of these "standards" are set up by the Education Association, which is a giant Union, which is first and foremost about MONEY. And what school districts in Nebraska have MONEY? Westside and Millard.
Well the power grab by OPS - then later by the "learning community" after OPS was rebuffed, was clearly about redistributing property taxes from the Westside, Millard, and Elkhorn districts to OPS. Whether you believe throwing more money at so-called underprivileged schools is 'fair' or not - you could certainly understand why people living in those districts would be resentful.
Yet you don't understand that people in OPS might not be resentful of people who are upwardly mobile enough to escape the problems of living in the city and create special school districts based on location? Why was it ok for other cities in Nebraska to adhere to "one city, one school district" but not Omaha? It is unfair to have these separate districts in the same city. Taking resources from the areas where they are needed more only compounds the problems for OPS.[/quote]
So when someone works hard and manages to move away from an area they don't want to live
, to somewhere they do want to live, perhaps to a better house, perhaps to what they perceive are better schools for their children - they aren't being fair to those who prefer to sit and wallow, gnashing their teeth at how unfair life is for them? Is that really what you're saying?[/quote]
I'll ignore the obvious attempts to malign lower income people for now.
How does moving to another part of the same city
excuse you from sharing in that cities burden for educating the children? It's absurd to think that someone living on 30th and Ames and someone on living on 90th and Pacific should have separate school systems in the same city
. Doesn't this at all bother the conservative sensibility that says more government is bad? You say that people "move away" from an area yet this is not truly what is happening. It's not as if they crossed into another city/county/state. They live and pay taxes in Omaha; where they likely drive, work, use city services, etc. However, they essentially are paying extra to exclude people from going to school with their own children. (Sounds more like 1950 than 2011.) District 66 and the Millard Schools are primarily made up of one socioeconomic group, while OPS serves many different groups. It's not hard to see that one group of people (those with a higher social/financial standing) want separate, but somehow equal districts. It's not possible. If they live in the city of Omaha they should paying to support Omaha Public Schools.
It's not possible for less affluent people to band together and raise property taxes to create a separate school district. Are the children of a renter in North or South Omaha, who is able to provide a living for their family, to be left to a disadvantaged public school system because those with money who live in the same city
are able to collectively raises money to exclude them from receiving a "better" education? This is blatant inequality.
I remember back when the OCOSD battle was raging in Omaha that there were cases in other Nebraska cities (I think Grand Island) where it was ruled illegal to have more than one school district per city. However, they did not feel the rules applied to Omaha.