 |
| In the southern tier, only Arizona escapes the worst category |
From the Washington Post:
Study: Poor children are now the majority in American public schools in South, West
By Lyndsey Layton, Published: October 16 E-mail the writer
A majority of students in public schools throughout the American South and West are low-income for the first time in at least four decades, according to a new study that details a demographic shift with broad implications for the country.
The analysis by the Southern Education Foundation, the nation’s oldest education philanthropy, is based on the number of students from preschool through 12th grade who were eligible for the federal free and reduced-price meals program in the 2010-11 school year.
Low-income students made up at least half the public school student population in 17 states in 2011, a marked increase from 2000, when four states topped 50 percent.
The meals program run by the Department of Agriculture is a rough proxy for poverty, because a family of four could earn no more than $40,793 a year to qualify in 2011.
Children from those low-income families dominated classrooms in 13 states in the South and the four Western states with the largest populations in 2011, researchers found. A decade earlier, just four states reported poor children as a majority of the student population in their public schools.
But by 2011, almost half of the nation’s 50 million public-school students — 48 percent — qualified for free or reduced-price meals.
Some of the deterioration from 2000 to 2011 is due to 2000 being an extraordinarily prosperous year. Another cause is the increasing inequality of the economy. And having a single number nationwide is misleading because of increasing differences in the cost of land.
But clearly, just from looking at how low incomes are concentrated in warmer weather states, much has to do with demographic change, especially the long run effects of immigration.
But clearly, just from looking at how low incomes are concentrated in warmer weather states, much has to do with demographic change, especially the long run effects of immigration.
In 2011, among the 15 states south of the famous 36'30" latitude, only Arizona escapes falling into the worst category. Perhaps that state's politicans' much denounced resistance to illegal immigration plays a positive role?
Only New Hampshire remains with less than 30% of public school students not qualifying for reduced price lunches.
Only New Hampshire remains with less than 30% of public school students not qualifying for reduced price lunches.
Posts
46 comments:
'Blue' state or 'red' state, too much 'diversity', black or brown, isn't doing too much good.
51% in Oregon? Wow.
Conservative masses voted for GOP's pro-rich policies with the idea that the big winners of the economic pie will be on the side of conservatism.
But the winners of the economic competition/collusion who got huge tax cuts and gained access to 'free trade' via globalism--a big ticket item in the GOP--decided to give us open borders, alienism(vs nativism), 'gay marriage', Obama, and Political Correctness.
We enriched them with 'conservative' GOP-led economic policies, and they gave us the most anti-conservative social/national program this country has ever seen.
Isn't it time for Patriotic Socialism? Not because we are envious that others have more but because those who have more have no respect for us and gloat that we are on the way down as all the Big Money is lined up behind 'amnesty'.
The key word in this study is "public" school, meaning in those states of most concern, the students are heavily NAM. And in many deep southern states, many whites are sent to private schools in order to avoid the black undertow blackboard jungles. If not private school, home schooled.
The real curious case of vastly increased public school student poverty in 2011 over 2000 is Oregon.
I don't really trust this chart at all. It stinks of simply redefining who qualifies in order to make the numbers larger.
My impression is that the school lunch program doesn't do much checking: if parents claim a low income, the kids get free lunches. It's not like applying for college financial aid where you submit your 1040.
http://www.vdare.com/articles/if-obamacare-is-settled-law-why-aren-t-welfare-reform-stop-and-frisk-second-amendent-rights
The same pattern over and over.
"As New Yorkers are about to discover if they elect Bill de Blasio mayor, for example, liberals will never abandon their plans to hamstring cops and spring criminals. For 30 years, New York City tried the Democrats' approach to crime. The result was an explosion of murders, rapes, permanent disfigurements, robberies, car thefts and burglaries. Then Rudy Giuliani came in and saved the city. The dramatic decrease in crime effected by Giuliani's crime policies made commerce, tourism—life!—possible again in New York."
Conservatives do Liberals and the urban rich a giant big fat favor, and the Liberals and the urban rich use their increased wealth, power, and privilege to dump on Conservatives.
Wouldn't it have been better for us if Giuliani had not saved NY? It might be a pisspot riddled with crime, and NY Liberals and rich people might not be so confident and cocky. NY would be a posterboy of failure of Liberal urban policies.
It's about time Cons stopped doing favors for the urban rich(who make up the 0.01%) Libs. All Libs will do is spit on you. You save their butts, but they kick your butt.
I'm glad Stop and Frisk is gone. I hope NY crime goes way up. Just as Libs mock white conservatives in the south and southwest who've been hurt by blacks and illegals, we should laugh and enjoy the suffering of blue city Libs and rich folks. Eff them.
So, Coulter needs to wise up. Libs and the urban 'creative' rich will eat from our table but then spit on us.
It's like the scene in SEVEN SAMURAI where the weakling farmer named Yohei says he tried to recruit a samurai and gave him free rice and sake, but the samurai just ate his fill, beat him up, and took off.
Cons are the Yoheis of America, especially in relation to Jews.
My impression is that the school lunch program doesn't do much checking: if parents claim a low income, the kids get free lunches. It's not like applying for college financial aid where you submit your 1040.
Some schools that are hitting the magic percentage of Free and Reduced Lunch that would qualify them for Title I money make a point of doling out the FRD forms to tip the scales.
I don't know the US that well, but those maps look depressing and plausible as the same time - except for Oregon. Have the demographics of the state changed so much?
How well do you know Britain? The available information is far more detailed.
http://www.theguardian.com/news/datablog/2011/mar/29/indices-multiple-deprivation-poverty-england
http://www.theguardian.com/news/datablog/interactive/2012/jun/15/poverty-map-britain#ward
The Northeast is largely white which enables PCers to highlight the problems faced by the indigenous population. Those towns never recovered from the collapse of the shipbuilding industry.
Also, rural areas in Cornwall may look poor on the map, but in reality they're fine. Shropshire and Herefordshire are nice places.
That leaves culturally enriched areas. They account for almost all the hellholes in the country.
They are also first in line for government largesse.
Incredibly detailed information is also available for NZ except that it doesn't come in map form.
There could be some other factors involved here...
1. Black migration back to the South.
2. Obama administration work with community organizers to get everyone as possible signed up for the program.
Why are public schools making people poor?
Didn't we just have a post about white kids going to charter schools?
Anecdotally, when I was in public school, ~15 years ago, charter schools barely existed, but now, the vast majority of my employed liberal arts friends work for one.
Yeah, it's apparently pretty hard not to qualify for reduced school lunch. If it's worth your time to fill out the paperwork, you'll probably get it.
Seems like I read about a school that started giving the free/reduced lunch to everyone, because so few kids weren't getting it that they saved money by not having to check the kids' lunch tickets or whatever and do all the paperwork to keep it all straight.
Or maybe they just ran the numbers and determined it would be cheaper. I don't suppose you could actually do it, because the feds wouldn't give you the money without the paperwork to prove that each kid was counted and had applied.
I live in Arlington county Virginia, which has the highest median income in the country. School officials brag that they do not check eligibility for free lunch. Much other federal money is tied to the number of free lunch kids.
The free/reduced lunch program seems to be run by the same kind of careerist, job-justifying, sign-'em-all-up multiculturalist utopiacrats who run the State Department's visa handout and refugee programs.
They are not POOR! They are low income. Anyone who lives in a building with glass windows, electricity and running water is not poor.
I'll eat my hat if this isn't largely the result of changing the ever-flexible definition of "poor".
Figures don't like, but liars figure.
Conservative masses voted for GOP's pro-rich policies ...
Pro-rich policies? Like what?
Cail that was SAUSD. Santa Ana. About 98% qualified. About 60% iirc are single mother households too. So SAUSD gave everyone free meals with a fed waiver.
My best frIend was as a cafeteria manager in the large Mt. Diablo School District in Contra Costa County in the SF Bay Area. She complained all the time that all a parent had to do was fill out an application for the school lunch program. She sent them to the district office where nothing was checked.
Sorry, I won't bother to read the article. But a few obvious, and not quite so obviously rhetorical, questions: What is the exact definition of "poor" here? How many of the "poor" families own two cars? (Or more than one TV? Just a couple of examples of a whole genre of similar questions.) And last but certainly not least: What is the demographic makeup of these "poor" kids? (Related: How much will the still-majority white taxpayers be asked to pay in order to try to remedy this?)
And from the look of things, all of these "poor" families should put every spare penny they have -- including their kids' allowance -- into the stock market; they won't be "poor" for long.
In Minnesota, everyone can have free lunch and breakfast without proving income because it is mean to ask kids if their families could pay.
Also the forms themselves only ask about w2 income. Technically people whose money comes from cap gains qualify. So who knows how much fraud is in the numbers.
But t would seem the goal is to spread the poverty around.
Foreign Expert said...
They are not POOR! They are low income. Anyone who lives in a building with glass windows, electricity and running water is not poor.
Many are poor, they live on charity. If they moved to your country they'd be poor by your definition.
Americans don't want to have anyone living poorly by your standards, so we built a safety net. The challenge is to get them to stop breeding. The other challenge is to stop importing people who come here to recline in the net. It almost sounds like you're bragging, "you think you've got poor; our poor eat worms from the gutter!"
The government should offer a very generous package, perhaps even a condo or a house, to be sterilized at 18. It might not be a bad idea to offer parents a hefty sum to sterilize their children. Do it for the environment.
I'm not sure if you're suggesting gay parents should not be allowed to have kids. I'm sure kids do better when their dad is not working overseas on a long term foreign assignment, too; it doesn't follow that such people should be stopped from having kids.
Of all the data I've seen on incomes, education, immigration, etc., this map hits me hardest of all.
I'm of a mind to send a copy of this map to Clinton, Obumbler, and (especially) Bush, with "Thanks a lot, asshole" written in bold across the top.
I intend to take a copy of it to my congressmens' offices - TAKE, not email - and ask them how they can support amnesty.
Conservative masses voted for GOP's pro-rich policies with the idea that the big winners of the economic pie will be on the side of conservatism. But the winners of the economic competition/collusion who got huge tax cuts and gained access to 'free trade' via globalism...decided to give us open borders, alienism(vs nativism), 'gay marriage', Obama, and Political Correctness.
You aren't kidding. With the 2006 Michigan affirmative action initiative in the news again, thanks to Tuesday's arguments at the Supreme Court, it's useful to look at who contributed to support the measure and who gave money to oppose it.
Groups supporting the ban on affirmative action raised $1.86 million, virtually none of it from corporations. Opponents raised $4.90 million, including $250k from Ford, $100k from Toyota, $200k from Dow Chemical, $250k and $150k respectively form the soon-to-be bankrupt Chrysler and General Motors.
Repeat as often as needed: Corporations. Are. Not. Conservative.
I think you have too many negatives in the last sentence? Feel free not to approve this comment.
"Only New Hampshire remains with *less* than 30% of public school students *not* qualifying for reduced price lunches." ???
The long-known principle is that adopted children don't well, because they are children of parents who could not manage to keep them. Sorry to say, but their genes are their future. Where are the gays getting their kids?
Say it after me - "Immigration *benefits* the USA".
Cail that was SAUSD. Santa Ana. About 98% qualified. About 60% iirc are single mother households too. So SAUSD gave everyone free meals with a fed waiver.
They no longer get the waiver, currently 80 percent get free and reduce OC Register 2013. The waver was good from 2009 to 2011. About 35 percent of the kids are single mothers not 60 percent as W reported. As much as we dislike illegal Mexicans a lot of them are either married or have a common law relationship. In fact first generation Mexicans have kids out of wedlock around 45 percent and second generation and second generation around 52 percent. W is thinking of the blacks in the south which do have areas with 60 percent of the single parents are out of wedlock. Houston Texas has about 90 percent of the school district on free and reduce and a higher number out of wedlock since about 19 percent of the school district is black. Black schools there have more folks on free and reduce than the Mexican group even the illegal immigrant group. and the Independent more nicer suburban area included about 60 percent.
These studies always get spun to disparage Red state America as a net drain when in fact it's largely a result of the demographic realities of the democratic leaning populations residing in those states. It shouldn't surprise anybody that Whites in states with large undertow populations tend to vote for whomever is willing to cut off the spigot.
Say it after me - "Immigration *benefits* the USA".
Well, only Florida, California and Texas have a lot of Hispanic illegal immigrants in this study. New Mexico has more of the second and third generation Mexicans and New Mexico doesn't have much in most of the state except mining that pays decent. Most of these are black states and are rural. The Republicans should have pushed urban development of much of the south and you would not had the Mississippi problem as much. Maybe, less blacks in the Southern states if they would have appeal to whites The Northern states the GOP doesn't like has less of this problem but did the Republican Party want an outreach to the Midwest no.
Open question to all liberals. You support ever more immigration, you complain of ever increasing inequality and worsening schools, you have all the levers of powers, so what is going wrong here ?
Well, it shows the GOP are low taxes, and regulation doesn't help if you have whites that have a history of poverty issues like Arkansas or West Virginia. The same does for blacks and Hispanics in the remaining state. Republicans should have a plan to develop the rural or urban areas of the south and cut off immigration in places like Texas that ad to the problem. Maybe, find out some of the things that work better in the north. They are slightly blue and purple states like Minnesota and Iowa that escape this. I read Minnesota is actually not considered that anti-business but not so hog whole on cutting taxes or regulations.
Arizona only has whites and Mexicans. Its black population is about 4 percent and Asian 3 percent. Blacks will ad to this and some of the poorer Asian groups can as well. People here when I told them that Arizona was a better model than Texas did not want to here it. Granted, Arizona unemployment is not the greatest since it only has two urban areas in Phoenix and Tucson but less poverty.
"Conservative masses voted for GOP's pro-rich policies ..."
"Pro-rich policies? Like what?"
You're joking, right?
Reagan's cutting taxes for the rich.
Reagan's de-regulation of Wall Street. GOP's support of globalism, 'free trade', and NAFTA. Reagan's amnesty to please California agro-industry.
Clinton won over the rich by adopting GOP economic policies as a New Democrat. And why did Thatcher say Blair was her best student?
Larry Summers may have de-regulated Wall Street, but GOP was even more for it than the Democrats, some of whom dissented with Clinton's policies.
Obama gave the sweetest deal to Wall Street one can imagine, but the likes of Romney and Limbaugh bitch and whine about Obama's 'socialist policies'. That so many white folks stayed home and didn't vote in 2012 shows that some white conservatives are waking up to the fact the GOP is a shit party. GOP is constantly for the rich when the rich and powerful in this nation concentrated in big cities like NY and SF hate, hate, and hate conservatives. The ONLY reason why some affluent urban types may vote for GOP is for lower taxes and EVEN MORE SLAVISH SUPPORT FOR ISRAEL, but almost never for true conservative reasons.
And conservative masses voted for the GOP thinking that doing favors for the rich and those-about-to-become-rich would translate into the rich favoring conservative policies. Boy, were they wrong.
I wonder... if not for the threat of communism, would capitalism even have been as a right-wing ideology?
Well, after communism faded away, we are now seeing the true face of top capitalists who are socially and culturally fully on the side of Liberalism and globalism.
With a Jew in Kentucky boasting that all the big money is on the side of Democratic/Neo-con 'immigration reform', isn't about time to wake up?
We gave them everything, and they got richer and richer, and they now kick us in the teeth.
But I don't have any hope for American Conservatives. The most anti-conservative people in America are the Jews, but no people are as slavish to the Jews as American conservatives are. Shameful and pathetic.
Powerful rich guys don't respect fat ugly girls who kneel at their feet despite all the abuse meted out to them.
"Groups supporting the ban on affirmative action raised $1.86 million, virtually none of it from corporations. Opponents raised $4.90 million, including $250k from Ford, $100k from Toyota, $200k from Dow Chemical, $250k and $150k respectively form the soon-to-be bankrupt Chrysler and General Motors."
To be sure, corporations may be supporting AA more out of cowardice than conviction. After all, 'anti-racism' is the religion of America, and corporations have to think about their public image. Also, corporations often depend on government policies, and they don't wanna alienate the people who run government, and most of those people are Democrat Liberals.
(After all, Japanese corporations in Japan don't believe in AA, and Japan is still conservative in many ways. But in the US, Toyota is pro-AA because it wants to sell cars to blacks and etc. You see, if you're pro-AA, even conservative white people will still buy your cars. It's seen as 'anti-racist'. But being anti-AA is associated with 'racism' and 'white privilege' thanks to the media, and most corporations prefer not to risk that. And even many conservatives are not comfortable with ending AA totally, including Sailer who wants it for blacks and Indians. Unless conservatives unite to boycott all pro-AA corporations, nothing can be done about it. Only fear and threats are effective. Mere talk is just talk.)
Even so, it goes to show that the rich are vain and craven and will do anything for their own benefit at the expense of the people.
he Northeast is largely white which enables PCers to highlight the problems faced by the indigenous population. Those towns never recovered from the collapse of the shipbuilding industry.
So, what, the south and Texas could do better, even with minorities they did better in the past. And not all Northern states are liberal, Utah does a lot better than Texas but people here are into I love the south too much.
"You see, if you're pro-AA, even conservative white people will still buy your cars."
DaimlerChrysler, GM, Ford, Toyota - I can boycott one or two car companies, but if you take out those four you aren't leaving me many options.
These companies had a clear option - they didn't have to contribute to the issue at all, especially not Toyota, which isn't even HQ'd in Michigan.
The answer is quite clear: conservatives need to learn how to wage an effective boycott. Losing a single customer is no big deal. But losing a single customer times tens of thousands is a huge deal.
The tragedy of the dissident right: our political hope is in the south, our demographic hope is in the north, and never the twain shall meet.
"Open question to all liberals. You support ever more immigration, you complain of ever increasing inequality and worsening schools, you have all the levers of powers, so what is going wrong here?"
Blame it on 'white racists' for keeping the minorities and immigrants down so that they cannot rise up to a higher level.
To be sure, Liberals change their rationale with every case.
With Asians(especially Indians and Chinese), they say, "look, they are so smart and so successful, and we need more people like them for the good of the economy." In other words, we need more immigrants because they are BETTER and MORE PRODUCTIVE than the native white population.
But with blacks and Hispanics, they say, "look they are so poor and in need of welfare or lowly jobs, and if we don't take them in, we are uncaring a--holes unwilling to share our bountiful wealth with those in need of compassion."
So, we need immigrants cuz they're both better than us... and worse than us.
A few weeks back, during summer, I saw a PSA for "Comidas gratuitas por el verano" (free food for the summer) on the train in Chicago. The ad showed a vibrant, winsome group of schoolkids.
I guess school doesn't have to be in session for people to get free school lunches.
It was, and is, pretty depressing. Aside from wishing they weren't in my state and country in such appalling quantities, I can't summon much dislike for the random shlubs benefiting from this sort of thing. The villain in this case is the people who profit off of cheap labor and then externalize costs like "comidas gratuitas" to the taxpayer.
Rahm Emmanuel, being the wealthy, pro-business cultural leftist that he is, is the perfect figure to preside over this depraved enterprise.
Even if the numbers are inflated due to widespread fraud, that's telling in its own way.
I have the impression that Americans of older generations would have been reluctant to accept public charity, particularly if it had to be obtained by lying.
To the extent that it's de rigeur to claim benefits regardless of one's qualification for those benefits, this speaks to a massive deterioration of civic virtue and social capital.
Which itself is not unrelated to mass immigration.
hese studies always get spun to disparage Red state America as a net drain when in fact it's largely a result of the demographic realities of the democratic leaning populations residing in those states. It shouldn't surprise anybody that Whites in states with large undertow populations tend to vote for whomever is willing to cut off the spigot.
So what,is New York lily white, its about 15 percent black, 19 percent Hispanic and 9 percent Asian. Granted, its not the best either but at least under 50 percent. Also, New York, New York is full of illegal immigrants both Asian and Hispanic. Also, white states of Oregon, Kentucky, West Virginia did bad. West Virginia is the white version of New Mexico.
This talk of pro-rich policies is a bit like asking about the definition of poor. Its shifting all the time. The great trick the elite (very much in the rich corner) have pulled is to convince well paid workers that they have something in common with the rich, the real rich ie people who own corporations, who often inherit their wealth.
"Marc B said...
These studies always get spun to disparage Red state America as a net drain when in fact it's largely a result of the demographic realities of the democratic leaning populations residing in those states. It shouldn't surprise anybody that Whites in states with large undertow populations tend to vote for whomever is willing to cut off the spigot."
You are right. And yet, they never do cut off the spigot, or even talk about it. "Red-state" conservatives voted for G.W. Bush. What were his two highest domestic priorities in his second term? 1.) Amnesty, and 2.) Social Security "reform" ("reform" should always be placed in scare-quotes). So he proposed to talk about diddling with social security, which many middle-class people pay into and draw out of, but not a single word about SNAP or TANF. Even his abortive S.S. reform would have been nothing but a gift to Wall-Street, by diverting those FICA payments into mutual funds (that we would not even control).
Post a Comment