The other thing is, there is just a philisophical difference in terms of how one becomes successful in this country. Libs like to point to people like Romney (filthy rich) or the Bushs (rich and well-connected political family) to reinforce the notion that the GOP is the party of haves from the get-go. They don't like to hear stories about people who came from humble beginnings and worked to make things happen for them, they don't like the overcoming adversity story-line unless it's the government and policy that allowed one to overcome odds. That whole thing gets the "bootstraps!" eye-roll. That's not to say that one can't appreciate these stories, but they are viewed as rare exceptions to how things really work and what is really possible. Therefore, Condi's is just being used by the GOP. Her story isn't genuine, and she's nuts to allow herself to be used in this way. (Just some of the facebook comments I've seen in relation to her speach last night from my liberal friends).
I disagree with this. I don't think there is a philosophical difference in how people become successful. The difference, in my view, is that people don't necessarily view those who come from a long line of riches and "success" as independently successful. Is Mitt Romney successful? Of course. But his parents are the inspirational boostraps story. Not him. It's not particularly difficult in this country to make something of yourself when you are already in the top 1%. And that is part of what bothers me about him. I don't give a damn if he's outrageously wealthy. I don't care that I will never even come close to achieving that kind of wealth. I care that he panders around pretending that if anyone, anywhere, works hard enough, we can do that too. That just isn't true. And it's disingenous for him to act as though that's how he made it to the top. The fact of the matter is that he was on top from the get-go. And I don't care about that. I just want him to own it.
Denying the complex and ugly battle to make the United States live up to words of its founding is an insult to progress and to how far we have come and how far we have yet to go. While the situation has changed, we can’t simply gloss over old horrors to make things easier for the same people who tried to stop progress because they claimed it was happening “too fast.”
Sou, I love this article. Love it. I have been thinking a lot about this when we have the discussions of how economic policy seems to weigh more heavily than social justice for some. And my thought is that it benefits me not if the economic policy creates a Boom if there is still some social happenstance that keeps me from taking full advantage of economic policy.
Social injustice may not be as overt as it once was. But when I look at things like how big banks treated equally qualified minority customers by handing out bad loans, it makes me cringe. Because to me, that is a prime example of how subtle social injustice gets wrapped up in an economic issue.
For years, local housing non-profits in my city went to the state asking that laws be changed because of subprime lending practices. This was BEFORE the housing meltdown. I'm talking seriously like 5 years before the meltdown. Eventually there was some change, but it wasn't enough before the house of cards came tumbling down. I couldn't put into words how that made me so angry other than likening it to redlining until I heard an NPR guest sum it up. To paraphrase the NPR guest, she basically said very little attention was paid to subprime practices in minority communities because it simply didn't affect everyone else in suburbia. It wasn't until the banks decided that they were getting away with those practices for years that maybe they could capitalize in the suburbs with the same type of lending practices. Until the entire country was brought to its knees, there was no concern about such egregious practices.
With that, I yelled YES in my car. Because that's it. That's exactly how discrimination meets economic issues head on.
ITA with all of this, Nitaw. To the bolded, this is a more eloquent way of framing my issue in general with focusing on the fiscal side separately from the social issues side. I am not sure the two can actually be unwound from one another, but even if they could, social inequalities make it difficult if not impossible for some people to take advantage of economic opportunities.
The mindset that because a particular social issue doesn't affect everyone in the US and arguably the economic picture of this country affects all of us that economic issues should be prioritized in a numbers game of how many people are impacted feels really wrong to me.
I have a question about the education focus of Condi's speech: it sounds as though we all agree that the educational divide is a huge civil rights issue today. But what she said struck me: I can tell zip code by zip code whether a child will have a decent education.
To me, that means that there needs NOT to be entirely local control, but system improvement and/or oversight; exactly what - if I understand correctly - the GOP wants to do away with.
So am I inferring something that was not said or am I missing some other point?
epphd - local control donest have much to do with school funding when you look at the zip codes. what she means is she can tell by a zip code which school will have the resources to have better educational systems since most school funding is based on property taxes.
so the better zip code with high property values will have the better educational systems. their local control is probably screaming robin hood when there is talk of equalized funding.
Bingo. And I agree with her 1000%. It's a dayum shame that certain schools are just doomed to failure. Which is why I wish these mofos in Congress and State Gov't would have real discussions on education. Vouchers aren't making public schools great by way of competition. If you want to give parents options, I can possibly get on board, but for the love of green grass, we have to realize that other schools are going to be left without resources and that is simply not fair to kids who can't get a spot in a voucher or charter school. Fix the whole dayum thing people!
I disagree with this. I don't think there is a philosophical difference in how people become successful. The difference, in my view, is that people don't necessarily view those who come from a long line of riches and "success" as independently successful. Is Mitt Romney successful? Of course. But his parents are the inspirational boostraps story. Not him. It's not particularly difficult in this country to make something of yourself when you are already in the top 1%. And that is part of what bothers me about him. I don't give a damn if he's outrageously wealthy. I don't care that I will never even come close to achieving that kind of wealth. I care that he panders around pretending that if anyone, anywhere, works hard enough, we can do that too. That just isn't true. And it's disingenous for him to act as though that's how he made it to the top. The fact of the matter is that he was on top from the get-go. And I don't care about that. I just want him to own it.
This says it perfectly, thank you.
I read it differently. Mitt's story is one that originates with his parents having nothing, as is Marco Rubio's story, and Pawlenty, and Condi Rice, and the list goes on an on. It's a theme about the potential for every generation to do better than the generation before them. These are examples of how that can and has happened. Joe Biden has the same theme, for example, in many of his speaches. This is the first generation, in a century, where people actually DON'T feel their children will do better or have more opportunites so stories about coming from humble ancestory are important to remember, and very relevent to where we are as a nation.
As for Romney, his background and successes are not similar to some other wealthy political families - the Kennedys, Bushs, etc. While his father was rich and that afforded him things like high quality education, he did not live off his father's money. He donated his inheritence. He DID live in a basement apartment with his wife while finishing school, not in a house purchased by his father, or a mansion. That part is not disengenous. His own successes have come from his own choices and work. The foundation for his success was the excellent education that was provided by the previous generation. Again, a theme that can be learned from - the power of quality education, for example. I'm not saying Romney had a humble childhood by any means, but he's not exactly Paris Hilton either.
I read it differently. Mitt's story is one that originates with his parents having nothing, as is Marco Rubio's story, and Pawlenty, and Condi Rice, and the list goes on an on. It's a theme about the potential for every generation to do better than the generation before them. These are examples of how that can and has happened. Joe Biden has the same theme, for example, in many of his speaches. This is the first generation, in a century, where people actually DON'T feel their children will do better or have more opportunites so stories about coming from humble ancestory are important to remember, and very relevent to where we are as a nation.
As for Romney, his background and successes are not similar to some other wealthy political families - the Kennedys, Bushs, etc. While his father was rich and that afforded him things like high quality education, he did not live off his father's money. He donated his inheritence. He DID live in a basement apartment with his wife while finishing school, not in a house purchased by his father, or a mansion. That part is not disengenous. His own successes have come from his own choices and work. The foundation for his success was the excellent education that was provided by the previous generation. Again, a theme that can be learned from - the power of quality education, for example. I'm not saying Romney had a humble childhood by any means, but he's not exactly Paris Hilton either.
I have absolutely zero problem with Mitt being rich, or where he got his money, or when or how. Absolutely zero. What I have a problem with him and others like him is having no ability to see that this is not something everyone can achieve regardless of how hard they work or how smart they are. It is not going to happen for everyone and it isn't always due to a deficit in their work ethic or character.
ETA: And I'm still bristling at that comment about liberals not being able to appreciate a rags-to-riches story that doesn't end in gov't assistance. That got to me, I must admit.
I read it differently. Mitt's story is one that originates with his parents having nothing, as is Marco Rubio's story, and Pawlenty, and Condi Rice, and the list goes on an on. It's a theme about the potential for every generation to do better than the generation before them. These are examples of how that can and has happened. Joe Biden has the same theme, for example, in many of his speaches. This is the first generation, in a century, where people actually DON'T feel their children will do better or have more opportunites so stories about coming from humble ancestory are important to remember, and very relevent to where we are as a nation.
As for Romney, his background and successes are not similar to some other wealthy political families - the Kennedys, Bushs, etc. While his father was rich and that afforded him things like high quality education, he did not live off his father's money. He donated his inheritence. He DID live in a basement apartment with his wife while finishing school, not in a house purchased by his father, or a mansion. That part is not disengenous. His own successes have come from his own choices and work. The foundation for his success was the excellent education that was provided by the previous generation. Again, a theme that can be learned from - the power of quality education, for example. I'm not saying Romney had a humble childhood by any means, but he's not exactly Paris Hilton either.
But I think this is also ignoring some really, really important things, such as the fact that it was a lot easier to be a rags to riches story a generation or two ago than it is today. For example, college tuition - it was possible back in the 60s and 70s to work your way through college. The average cost of college in 1976, just a few years after Romney graduated, was $2,275 -- in *today's* dollars. You could work part time and pay for school and when you graduated, you wouldn't have any debt weighing you down as you started out.
You also were able to buy a home at a relatively low cost and watch that investment grow over the years. Your local public schools were fairly well-funded. Etc. etc. - my point is that there is a reason that this generation is the first to feel that their children will not be better off than they are, and it certainly isn't because taxes are too high (as they are currently at nearly record lows).
I read it differently. Mitt's story is one that originates with his parents having nothing, as is Marco Rubio's story, and Pawlenty, and Condi Rice, and the list goes on an on. It's a theme about the potential for every generation to do better than the generation before them. These are examples of how that can and has happened. Joe Biden has the same theme, for example, in many of his speaches. This is the first generation, in a century, where people actually DON'T feel their children will do better or have more opportunites so stories about coming from humble ancestory are important to remember, and very relevent to where we are as a nation.
As for Romney, his background and successes are not similar to some other wealthy political families - the Kennedys, Bushs, etc. While his father was rich and that afforded him things like high quality education, he did not live off his father's money. He donated his inheritence. He DID live in a basement apartment with his wife while finishing school, not in a house purchased by his father, or a mansion. That part is not disengenous. His own successes have come from his own choices and work. The foundation for his success was the excellent education that was provided by the previous generation. Again, a theme that can be learned from - the power of quality education, for example. I'm not saying Romney had a humble childhood by any means, but he's not exactly Paris Hilton either.
I have absolutely zero problem with Mitt being rich, or where he got his money, or when or how. Absolutely zero. What I have a problem with him and others like him is having no ability to see that this is not something everyone can achieve regardless of how hard they work or how smart they are. It is not going to happen for everyone and it isn't always due to a deficit in their work ethic or character.
ETA: And I'm still bristling at that comment about liberals not being able to appreciate a rags-to-riches story that doesn't end in gov't assistance. That got to me, I must admit.
Same. The fact that he has made several comments along the lines of "borrow money from your parents" illustrate that he doesn't get that it just isn't possible for everyone.
I have absolutely zero problem with Mitt being rich, or where he got his money, or when or how. Absolutely zero. What I have a problem with him and others like him is having no ability to see that this is not something everyone can achieve regardless of how hard they work or how smart they are. It is not going to happen for everyone and it isn't always due to a deficit in their work ethic or character.
ETA: And I'm still bristling at that comment about liberals not being able to appreciate a rags-to-riches story that doesn't end in gov't assistance. That got to me, I must admit.
Exactly. Agreed entirely. I don't begrudge Romney his beginnings, and I admire his work ethic and yes, business success. But to not acknowledge that he had help along the way - in the form of a well off family, the right skin tone and gender and more - well it's just disingenuous. One can claim all the credit they are due, owing to hard work and good choices, while simultaneously acknowledging a healthy amount of privilege played a role as well. It doesn't take away from his accomplishments.
I think we can all agree that the playing field SHOULD be level, but it is not - at least not yet.
I have absolutely zero problem with Mitt being rich, or where he got his money, or when or how. Absolutely zero. What I have a problem with him and others like him is having no ability to see that this is not something everyone can achieve regardless of how hard they work or how smart they are. It is not going to happen for everyone and it isn't always due to a deficit in their work ethic or character.
ETA: And I'm still bristling at that comment about liberals not being able to appreciate a rags-to-riches story that doesn't end in gov't assistance. That got to me, I must admit.
Exactly. Agreed entirely. I don't begrudge Romney his beginnings, and I admire his work ethic and yes, business success. But to not acknowledge that he had help along the way - in the form of a well off family, the right skin tone and gender and more - well it's just disingenuous. One can claim all the credit they are due, owing to hard work and good choices, while simultaneously acknowledging a healthy amount of privilege played a role as well. It doesn't take away from his accomplishments.
I think we can all agree that the playing field SHOULD be level, but it is not - at least not yet.
I don't disagree with this - but how does that play out politically? One of the main philisophical differences between conservatives and liberals is the libeal belief that the government must level the playing field, and conservatives just do not see that as the role of government with education probably being the exception. Nothing in politics is ever honest, on either side, so the expectation that Mitt or any other speaker come out in their 20 minute speach and throw a "by the way, this is a great story but remember I'm white and had parents who helped - so this can't happen for everyone" sort of defeats the theme of possibility - no? I really don't think that Romney, or any other candidate, is so blind that they truly believe the things you mention have 0 impact on their own success.
I think the convention, thus far, has highlighted the fact that there is NOT an even playing field - particularly when it comes to education and as Condi Rice specifically pointed out, this disparity impacts the poor and minorities the most. On the same note, however, I don't see dems highlighting this issue above all others in terms of meaninful impact in life and I don't see any grand solutions. To me, a theme of "everyone does not have equal opportunites and government needs to level that playing field" without providing specifics beyond taxing the top 1,2 or 5 percent is disengenous.
Exactly. Agreed entirely. I don't begrudge Romney his beginnings, and I admire his work ethic and yes, business success. But to not acknowledge that he had help along the way - in the form of a well off family, the right skin tone and gender and more - well it's just disingenuous. One can claim all the credit they are due, owing to hard work and good choices, while simultaneously acknowledging a healthy amount of privilege played a role as well. It doesn't take away from his accomplishments.
I think we can all agree that the playing field SHOULD be level, but it is not - at least not yet.
I don't disagree with this - but how does that play out politically? One of the main philisophical differences between conservatives and liberals is the libeal belief that the government must level the playing field, and conservatives just do not see that as the role of government with education probably being the exception. Nothing in politics is ever honest, on either side, so the expectation that Mitt or any other speaker come out in their 20 minute speach and throw a "by the way, this is a great story but remember I'm white and had parents who helped - so this can't happen for everyone" sort of defeats the theme of possibility - no? I really don't think that Romney, or any other candidate, is so blind that they truly believe the things you mention have 0 impact on their own success.
I think the convention, thus far, has highlighted the fact that there is NOT an even playing field - particularly when it comes to education and as Condi Rice specifically pointed out, this disparity impacts the poor and minorities the most. On the same note, however, I don't see dems highlighting this issue above all others in terms of meaninful impact in life and I don't see any grand solutions. To me, a theme of "everyone does not have equal opportunites and government needs to level that playing field" without providing specifics beyond taxing the top 1,2 or 5 percent is disengenous.
The problem is that the GOP is basically saying "the playing field isn't level and let's do things to make it worse - let's make student loans less available, let's take away Pell grants, lets cut taxes on the rich and raise them on the poor and middle class, let's get rid of daycare subsidies for working lower class parents, let's defund SCHIP so that lower and middle class kids will be kicked off health insurance." They're not only NOT proposing solutions to the problem, they're actively proposing things that will make the problem worse.
I don't disagree with this - but how does that play out politically? One of the main philisophical differences between conservatives and liberals is the libeal belief that the government must level the playing field, and conservatives just do not see that as the role of government with education probably being the exception. Nothing in politics is ever honest, on either side, so the expectation that Mitt or any other speaker come out in their 20 minute speach and throw a "by the way, this is a great story but remember I'm white and had parents who helped - so this can't happen for everyone" sort of defeats the theme of possibility - no? I really don't think that Romney, or any other candidate, is so blind that they truly believe the things you mention have 0 impact on their own success.
I think the convention, thus far, has highlighted the fact that there is NOT an even playing field - particularly when it comes to education and as Condi Rice specifically pointed out, this disparity impacts the poor and minorities the most. On the same note, however, I don't see dems highlighting this issue above all others in terms of meaninful impact in life and I don't see any grand solutions. To me, a theme of "everyone does not have equal opportunites and government needs to level that playing field" without providing specifics beyond taxing the top 1,2 or 5 percent is disengenous.
Honest, what role for government does the GOP in terms of education and at what level...federal...state...local?
Exactly. Agreed entirely. I don't begrudge Romney his beginnings, and I admire his work ethic and yes, business success. But to not acknowledge that he had help along the way - in the form of a well off family, the right skin tone and gender and more - well it's just disingenuous. One can claim all the credit they are due, owing to hard work and good choices, while simultaneously acknowledging a healthy amount of privilege played a role as well. It doesn't take away from his accomplishments.
I think we can all agree that the playing field SHOULD be level, but it is not - at least not yet.
I don't disagree with this - but how does that play out politically? One of the main philisophical differences between conservatives and liberals is the libeal belief that the government must level the playing field, and conservatives just do not see that as the role of government with education probably being the exception. Nothing in politics is ever honest, on either side, so the expectation that Mitt or any other speaker come out in their 20 minute speach and throw a "by the way, this is a great story but remember I'm white and had parents who helped - so this can't happen for everyone" sort of defeats the theme of possibility - no? I really don't think that Romney, or any other candidate, is so blind that they truly believe the things you mention have 0 impact on their own success.
I think the convention, thus far, has highlighted the fact that there is NOT an even playing field - particularly when it comes to education and as Condi Rice specifically pointed out, this disparity impacts the poor and minorities the most. On the same note, however, I don't see dems highlighting this issue above all others in terms of meaninful impact in life and I don't see any grand solutions. To me, a theme of "everyone does not have equal opportunites and government needs to level that playing field" without providing specifics beyond taxing the top 1,2 or 5 percent is disengenous.
To be honest, I am not sure how I think it should play out politically. I am also not 100% on board with the government being responsible for leveling the playing field. At this point though, the sheer acknowledgement by Mitt that his expectation that everyone pull themselves out of their own hole is unrealistic, and in some cases, an actual impossibility, would help my view of him.
I don't disagree with this - but how does that play out politically? One of the main philisophical differences between conservatives and liberals is the libeal belief that the government must level the playing field, and conservatives just do not see that as the role of government with education probably being the exception.
And that's one reason I'm not a conservative. I don't believe that the better nature of humanity and the free market alone will eventually level the playing field. It falls in to that category of the majority granting rights to the minority - it rarely happens on its own without some sort of legislative (read: government) action.
That said, as a liberal I absolutely believe in taking ownership of your life. No one should assume that handouts are just available for the taking and that simply showing up (by being born) is enough. Yet I also don't think many people like that exist. Rather, I believe that the fact that when we see systemic or generational poverty and a wide class divide, that more often than not it's due to structural problems and NOT inherent laziness.
It's a fair criticism that whining about a divide =/= fixing it though. It's just hard to fix something not everyone will even acknowledge.
I don't disagree with this - but how does that play out politically? One of the main philisophical differences between conservatives and liberals is the libeal belief that the government must level the playing field, and conservatives just do not see that as the role of government with education probably being the exception. Nothing in politics is ever honest, on either side, so the expectation that Mitt or any other speaker come out in their 20 minute speach and throw a "by the way, this is a great story but remember I'm white and had parents who helped - so this can't happen for everyone" sort of defeats the theme of possibility - no? I really don't think that Romney, or any other candidate, is so blind that they truly believe the things you mention have 0 impact on their own success.
I think the convention, thus far, has highlighted the fact that there is NOT an even playing field - particularly when it comes to education and as Condi Rice specifically pointed out, this disparity impacts the poor and minorities the most. On the same note, however, I don't see dems highlighting this issue above all others in terms of meaninful impact in life and I don't see any grand solutions. To me, a theme of "everyone does not have equal opportunites and government needs to level that playing field" without providing specifics beyond taxing the top 1,2 or 5 percent is disengenous.
To be honest, I am not sure how I think it should play out politically. I am also not 100% on board with the government being responsible for leveling the playing field. At this point though, the sheer acknowledgement by Mitt that his expectation that everyone pull themselves out of their own hole is unrealistic, and in some cases, an actual impossibility, would help my view of him.
Is this something you just think based on the perception of the GOP or Romney's background - he's rich, he doesn't get it - or has he said something in terms of real policy that makes you think it is his expectation that everyone pull themselves out of their own hole. There are definitive policy differences in terms of how you go about improving the lives of others and creating as equal a playing field as is possible in a free society under captialism, however I don't see where he's a "every man for themselves" candidate either, his desire to improve education BECAUSE it has such a profound impact on how we end-up would be one example. I would say the same of Obama - he understands this, I haven't seen a good plan for accomplishing it yet, but he spent his first 2 years on healthcare so I realize education is also not a quicky solution deal.
I didn't hear her speech, but I want to address the tokenism points.
When Palin was on the ticket, there were lots of cries from the right about how liberals were jealous or that they hated her because she was a woman or because they didn't want the GOP to be the first party to put a woman into office, etc etc etc.
Those arguments pissed me the fuck off. And Condi Rice is the reason why. I don't like Rice's politics, and I especially hated the Bush administration's foreign policy. But damn, it made me proud to know that the face of our country was a woman, and a woman of color at that. And if she ever ran for president, I doubt I'd vote for her (though admittedly I'd hear her out only because she seems less socially conservative than most in the party), but I would feel great about living in a country that had elected such a smart, talented, accomplished, and capable woman into office, and I think she's an amazing role model to younger women.
I have been away from the boards for a few days so I haven't seen the spot the black person threads (nor have I watched much of the convention). But I know for myself, what makes me roll my eyes is not the GOP having a black speaker at the podium, but when they so obviously dig into the trenches to find some completely random and minor player that would not be invited to speak if they were white. And nitaw's example of Michael Steele is a good one. When he spoke in 2008 (months before he ran for RNC chair), he was a has-been Lt. Gov of a medium-ish state with a failed Senate bid. That's sort of an odd choice for a speaker. Particularly given that the GOP was still in office and there were tons of more current people in the rosters. So, what on earth did Steele add that nobody else did? He's not even a compelling public speaker, nor does he have some interesting business experience. I don't think anyone is out of bounds there wondering why the hell he was there. There's a world of difference between him and Condi Rice, ie someone you can look at her resume and know exactly why she's there speaking. Just like nearly every other person who gets invited to speak. I get why Chris Christie is there, and McCain, etc.
I'm not saying that the spot the black person threads are appropriate, or that Michael Steele got everything in life because of affirmative action. I am saying that liberals aren't just looking at minorities or women in the GOP and having knee-jerk TOKEN!!!!! reactions, and I find it insulting that people actually think that about some of us.
To be honest, I am not sure how I think it should play out politically. I am also not 100% on board with the government being responsible for leveling the playing field. At this point though, the sheer acknowledgement by Mitt that his expectation that everyone pull themselves out of their own hole is unrealistic, and in some cases, an actual impossibility, would help my view of him.
Is this something you just think based on the perception of the GOP or Romney's background - he's rich, he doesn't get it - or has he said something in terms of real policy that makes you think it is his expectation that everyone pull themselves out of their own hole. There are definitive policy differences in terms of how you go about improving the lives of others and creating as equal a playing field as is possible in a free society under captialism, however I don't see where he's a "every man for themselves" candidate either, his desire to improve education BECAUSE it has such a profound impact on how we end-up would be one example. I would say the same of Obama - he understands this, I haven't seen a good plan for accomplishing it yet, but he spent his first 2 years on healthcare so I realize education is also not a quicky solution deal.
Both from what I understand of certain GOP policy standpoints (decrease of federal student grant aid, student loan interest rate discussions, Head-Start funding, school lunch program, SNAP benefits, to name a few) and specific comments. As I mentioned earlier, the Romney "borrow money from your parents" comment really, really doesn't sit well with me. That suggests to me that he truly doesn't get it and it's not just liberal rhetoric saying he's out of touch on this issue.
I'm not saying that the spot the black person threads are appropriate, or that Michael Steele got everything in life because of affirmative action. I am saying that liberals aren't just looking at minorities or women in the GOP and having knee-jerk TOKEN!!!!! reactions, and I find it insulting that people actually think that about some of us.
A handful of liberals on this board stated quite clearly in the multiple spot a minority threads that they think GOP minorities are tokens. I hope a lot of liberals on this board don't think that, but it has been put in writing multiple times this week here, so I'd be a fool not to realize that, yes, some people here think that.
I wouldn't put you in that category though, in case that's not clear.
I agree with this 100% as well. These things should be included in both parties platforms for education reform - it's why programs like No Child Left Behind and Race to the Top, while in theory are well-intentioned but in terms of real results, haven't and won't work. I also agree that part of this has to be a community effort - how does a school district really help the child who goes home to a non-existant, verbally/physcially abusive, alcoholic parent? We've become apathetic to such circumstances as a society, willing to turn a blind eye or mind our own business. In the end, this will contribute to our economic downfall as much as debts and deficits.
I agree with this 100% as well. These things should be included in both parties platforms for education reform - it's why programs like No Child Left Behind and Race to the Top, while in theory are well-intentioned but in terms of real results, haven't and won't work. I also agree that part of this has to be a community effort - how does a school district really help the child who goes home to a non-existant, verbally/physcially abusive, alcoholic parent? We've become apathetic to such circumstances as a society, willing to turn a blind eye or mind our own business. In the end, this will contribute to our economic downfall as much as debts and deficits.
Here's a quote from Mitt's website on his education stance, "...[these] principles, testing our kids, excellent curriculum, superb teachers, and school choice. Those are the answers to help our schools."
Mitt claims his success for schools at the state level includes helping get more charter schools, a more rigorous standarized test for high school students, and a college scholarship fund for the top 25% of high school students. None of those deal with outside influences/social issues that start early and distiniguish how a student is able to focus and lean at an early age.
Nowhere in the page or white paper on education does it say that his ticket is going to tackle the other 85% outside influence issues.
However, I should add that at a local level, I think schools are trying to reach out to the community they are in and expand services. From my limited experience, we attended a charter school in CO that purposefully took at least 15% of their students from a group that were under IEPs in order to expand the services available - and still tested very high (remember if you have a lot of IEP/children with special needs, your teachers are not going to get bonuses/rewards based on testing performance). Plus, our current small district has seen a correlation between home-life and kids thriving in schools, and since several national studies have shown that teachers understanding and knowing the home life can help overcome some of the social issues, every kindergartener entering the school district this year gets a home visit from their K teacher to meet the parents and help make a connection to better provide services and education.
However, these things take $$...so funding in smaller or lower funded areas might need to come from the federal government at a higher rate than areas that are more affluent and can cover costs better with property taxes and such.
I don't see Mitt talking about funding and increasing it for socially/economically disadvantaged areas, but maybe he hasn't gotten to that yet. And I'm sure as heck not going to assume that what Condi says is what the Romney/Ryan ticket is going to say.