[HN Gopher] All Foster Kids in California Can Now Attend Any Sta...
___________________________________________________________________
All Foster Kids in California Can Now Attend Any State College for
Free
Author : pessimizer
Score : 191 points
Date : 2023-07-23 21:24 UTC (1 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (themessenger.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (themessenger.com)
| ecf wrote:
| Where is the support for the middle class? The ones deemed too
| wealthy for financial aid, but not wealthy enough to actually
| afford the cost of college?
|
| Just more tax dollars being siphoned away from my family that got
| zero assistance.
| j45 wrote:
| The cost of post secondary education is untenable.
|
| Post secondaries are quite overpriced. Community / state
| colleges are usually priced better.
|
| Can you give an example of a college that you are priced out
| of?
|
| The increasing gap between graduates and the non market because
| the rate of change in the world is outpacing the rate of change
| in curriculum to keep up in post secondaries is an opportunity.
|
| Effective allocation of public funds and ensuring there is
| value received for the public purse is something that needs to
| be taken up by the average person to learn about and to ask
| informed questions about.
| ProllyInfamous wrote:
| ALL kids in Tennessee can now attend any two year trade school
| upon graduation from a state high school. Adults can, as well,
| based on certain additional requirements (that really are easy
| after you've lived in-state).
| ec109685 wrote:
| California's junior colleges are super cost effective as well.
| brightlancer wrote:
| What is the legal status of foster kids with regard to general
| financial aid? Is their parents' income considered to be $0? Does
| the government want the parents' income information? (This used
| to be the norm for non-custodial and estranged parents.)
|
| It feels great to say "California's most vulnerable young people
| can take agency over their lives by seeking higher education,"
| but how much is this changing? And since we know most high school
| grads aren't prepared to basic college freshman classes (cough
| social promotion cough), then how many of these foster kids are
| really going to benefit, rather than just spinning their wheels
| before they fail out?
|
| This feels a lot like a big headline that makes people feel good
| but doesn't actually do much (if anything, or makes things
| worse).
| charles_f wrote:
| Something doesn't need to be perfect to be better. We're
| talking about 60k kids who will be able to receive an education
| instead of 4% of that. It won't solve hunger, but for these
| kids it's a good news.
| lopkeny12ko wrote:
| It's odd that many of the same people cheering this decision are
| the same ones crying for meritocracy in the workplace.
|
| Handouts and free passes as long as you're characterized by
| $some_immutable_trait? Then don't be upset when you're passed
| over for a promotion to fulfill a company diversity promotion
| threshold.
| lern_too_spel wrote:
| This doesn't guarantee them a spot at any public university. It
| guarantees that their education will be paid for at any public
| university they are admitted to and subsequently matriculate
| at.
| j45 wrote:
| There is no shortage of studies verifying babies do not select
| the families, location or socio-economic conditions they are
| born into, but the world will treat them as if they chose
| poorly.
|
| Or look down on them.
|
| It's funny hearing about the concepts of handouts when the
| people most offended are too often including those who have
| access to some amount of privilege but not enough to be upset
| about sharing it.
|
| There is a lot of easily accessible learning available there
| for your statement that would help illuminate a bigger picture
| for you. You are already part way there by being engaged on it.
|
| Mostly about it's not being about an immutable trait. Knowing
| this requires you to exert more than a basic interpretation and
| opinion.
|
| If you don't think it's a big deal would you switch positions
| with someone in that position since it's so easy?
| pessimizer wrote:
| "Foster child" is no more an immutable trait than "lack of
| ability to speak French."
| AYBABTME wrote:
| Now we're talking about actually useful policy. Glad that my
| taxes pay for this, versus all the other stuff.
| Racing0461 wrote:
| What's to stop parents from putting their kids up for foster care
| when they turn 15 so they can attend college at 16 for free?
| ekam wrote:
| The state only takes care of kids if a court assumes
| jurisdiction under WIC 300. You can only voluntarily give ups
| kid within the first few days of birth (this is known as safe
| surrender https://advokids.org/legal-tools/safe-surrender/)
| otherwise courts usually assume jurisdiction due to cases of
| abuse, neglect, abandonment, etc
| version_five wrote:
| I'm not against it necessarily, but curious about the stats or
| wisdom on what happens to people who get a free ride like this,
| as in do they complete university successfully and usefully or do
| they milk their free room and board and fail out eventually?
|
| Handouts are not generally a great way of accomplishing goals. I
| don't have a better idea, just thinking if there can be a way to
| make sure there is some ownership on the part of the students.
| starside wrote:
| I think this is a good idea. That is the first time in a long
| time I have thought "wow, the state is doing something useful
| with my tax dollars"
| tarr11 wrote:
| also free lunches in schools
|
| https://www.nycfoodpolicy.org/states-that-have-passed-univer...
| WirelessGigabit wrote:
| I love this policy. If it's free then no-one brings their
| own, and no-one is looked down at.
|
| BUT... I checked the menu of a school where I used to live...
|
| Pizza, hot dogs, fries... We can make the most delicious
| vegetables, roasted, ...
|
| And they get carbs. Nutrition taken from nature decomposed in
| its elemental components put back together for the perfect
| addictive meal...
| steve_adams_86 wrote:
| I'm not opposed to the carbs. I think if they're in a whole
| food form, the kids are so much better off than if they're
| eating processed... Anything.
|
| Not teaching kids to eat whole foods is one of the greatest
| assaults on public health we've done in the last century,
| from what I can see. They become adults who normalize
| eating these perfect addictive meals, who allow their own
| kids access to the same junk, and then they their own kids
| as well, and so on. Until today when grocery stores are
| quite literally predominately food that you shouldn't eat.
| You just shouldn't.
|
| Most common diseases in north America are highly correlated
| with diet. I find that so profound. We're all eating
| ourselves to death in some form or another, it seems. To
| have that start in a public school is a real affront to
| individual and social well-being.
| armchairhacker wrote:
| We teach kids to eat whole foods, we just don't teach
| them well.
|
| I remember in school we had a lot of programs for
| nutrition which were basically health-food propaganda.
| Yes it was the "Food Pyramid" so not ideal, but there was
| a clear message to eat minimally-processed foods (fruits,
| vegetables, dairy, grains) and avoid junk. We watched
| "Supersize Me" and a documentary which explained all
| these "vegan / whole foods" diets. But kids still eat
| junk because they're kids and they don't really
| understand or care, and everyone around them eats junk;
| and then grow up and continue to eat junk because it's
| cheaper/easier and they did as kids.
|
| Also, we had fruits and vegetables in every school lunch,
| as well as salads and wraps as alternatives to the hot
| meal. But the fruits were often wilted or bruised, and
| vegetables canned and/or overcooked. If we had good-
| tasting healthy food, I'm sure more kids would eat it;
| but the school lunch was school-lunch quality, and bad
| quality degrades healthy food more than it does junk
| food.
|
| The problem is, if we want to teach kids how to eat
| unprocessed food so that they actually listen, we need
| nuance and funding. To teach them "healthy <> bad
| tasting", we need to give them access to good-tasting
| healthy meals, which are hard to cook. Or if we just keep
| scaring them into eating less junk, we need to change
| society so that it's more ingrained that junk food is bad
| outside of school; right now they get mixed messages,
| where 1 semester of health class says "junk food bad",
| but few people care anywhere else. But nuance, funding,
| and affecting culture are things the government is really
| bad at, especially when it's an issue as "insignificant"
| as eating healthy.
| WWLink wrote:
| We shouldn't let perfect be the enemy of good. I'd rather
| see kids get free pizza and hot dogs for school lunch, than
| I would a system where it costs $8 per student and only
| some kids get free lunch, but it's 100% vegan fair trade
| certified healthy food.
|
| Now if you can pull a boiling frog meme and make the pizza
| be healthy, haha more power to them!
| giantg2 wrote:
| Interesting, most places I've seen are increasing the food
| restrictions, including in food brought from home. This is
| probably something you can address with your district if
| your state doesn't already some healthy school food law.
| megaman821 wrote:
| All school lunches and breakfasts should be free. It is
| abhorrent that any child in a country as rich as the United
| States should go hungry at school.
| torstenvl wrote:
| As a taxpayer who funds public schools, I find it
| acceptable to subsidize the food of those who are
| struggling, but I do not have any desire to subsidize the
| ruling elite (who, in many cases, intentionally keep
| working class pay low). They can pay for their own
| children's food.
| JumpCrisscross wrote:
| > _I find it acceptable to subsidize the food of those
| who are struggling, but I do not have any desire to
| subsidize the food of those who keep my pay low._
|
| Doesn't the means-testing bureaucracy frequently outweigh
| any potential savings? Food is cheap. Bureaucrats are
| not.
| brightlancer wrote:
| > Doesn't the means-testing bureaucracy frequently
| outweigh any potential savings?
|
| Maybe. Don't assume yes.
| JumpCrisscross wrote:
| > _Maybe. Don 't assume yes._
|
| I'm not. I'm positing yes based on the cheapness of food.
| chowells wrote:
| The ruling elite don't let their children eat school food
| in the first place.
| themitigating wrote:
| Since the children of elites represent such a small
| percentage and the cost per child is low is it really
| that big of a hit?
| MikeTheGreat wrote:
| On the one hand I 100% agree
|
| On the other hand we've got the phrase "Programs _for_
| the poor _become_ poor " for a reason. Having a program
| that benefits everyone means that we all can support it
| out of enlightened self-interest.
|
| We can reduce overhead by providing food for everyone and
| not putting in place a complex government bureaucracy to
| carefully approve some people but not others, to give
| lobbyists a chance to advocate for the benefit of their
| constituents at the expense of everyone else, etc, etc.
| duskwuff wrote:
| Moreover, if free food is only available to low-income
| students, having to eat that food can become a symbol of
| poverty, and some students may feel ashamed to receive
| it. Making it available to all students, without
| reservation, avoids that.
| pessimizer wrote:
| Also, you can literally lower the quality of the food.
| reverend_gonzo wrote:
| The ruling elite don't go to public school. They already
| pay for their children's food.
| pessimizer wrote:
| You shouldn't be a sucker. For the ruling elite, it's an
| insignificant tax rebate. The overhead of a means-testing
| system to make sure that people who have been taxed for
| 50 free lunches don't get one is a waste that wouldn't be
| tolerated, except for the fact that we know the hurdles
| of bureaucracy will eliminate most of the people who
| qualify, bringing down costs by leaving children hungry.
|
| edit: The idea that your tax dollars are going to pay for
| the universal benefit of someone who pays more taxes than
| you do is mathematically nonsensical. It's purely a
| gimmick. It's a shell game with no shells other than
| innumeracy.
| megaman821 wrote:
| There is no reason not make it universal. A lot of kids
| will still bring their own lunches. Teens in high school
| will choose paid lunch options some of time. The program
| would probably have a similar cost to SNAP.
|
| Hungry kids don't learn well, so feeding them will lead
| to a modest increase of academic achievement on average.
| Academic achievement correlates with higher earnings,
| thereby paying for the program with their future taxes.
| giantg2 wrote:
| This seems to make sense on the surface, but I'm
| skeptical about the last part. It seems we're in a race
| to the bottom and "good" jobs are increasingly scarce. It
| seems there aren't enough good jobs for the population.
| Basically, the logic you laid out is probably sound for
| small marginal changes, but I'm skeptical it would scale
| well due to the competition and limited resources.
| dymk wrote:
| The number of ruling elite is laughably small compared to
| the number of poor in the United States
| spamizbad wrote:
| The solution to this problem (Wealthy elites getting free
| stuff) is to just ensure they're taxed appropriately. I
| do not care if the children of the wealthy are receiving
| free lunches as long as they're paying their fair share
| of taxes. Chances are, even with California's weird tax
| system, they are paying _more_ than your typical middle
| class family.
| Rebelgecko wrote:
| In theory I agree with you, but in practice I think means
| testing does more harm than good. Some parents aren't
| gonna fill out the paperwork and we shouldn't punish kids
| for that. It also adds overhead to the programs.
|
| And I don't think the ruling elite's kids are eating free
| lunch at public schools :)
| ochoseis wrote:
| What if you thought of it as: perhaps at your income
| level your taxes fund one kid's meals, and at the elite's
| income level their taxes fund ten kids' meals? IDK how
| the actual numbers work, but that would be the gist in a
| progressive tax system.
| throwaway72762 wrote:
| Is everything culture war all the time now on this site? Every
| post becomes a stupid comment section where we'd be better off
| getting an LLM to write the comments for us.
|
| Here it's people trying to insert their affirmative action
| narratives and also rant about California a bit (in a backhanded
| way).
|
| We can do better.
| osigurdson wrote:
| Well kids, see you later. Let's talk again when you are 30.
| remote_phone wrote:
| I hate Newsom but I think this is a good idea. Education and
| support should be 100% free for those in the more difficult
| economic situations.
| ecf wrote:
| I don't agree.
|
| My parents are low middle class. We didn't qualify for any
| financial aid and they were tasked with trying to find a way to
| send both my sister and I to college which they couldn't
| afford.
|
| So what did we do? Take out a bunch of loans. Good thing I got
| a decent job that can pay for them. Too bad for my sister who
| had a masters and is making $35k as a teacher in Tennessee
| which is barely more than minimum wage.
| tester457 wrote:
| I think it should be free because of stories like yours. It
| shouldn't be a requirement to be saddled with debt to
| participate in society.
| bagacrap wrote:
| I agree it should cost less, but I don't understand why
| everyone seems to think the government (taxpayers) should
| be paying these tuitions. The problem is that tuition is
| ridiculous.
| slt2021 wrote:
| Problem with free tuitition is it only incentivizes cash
| grab from educational institutions.
|
| There will be gazillion universities overnight similar to
| coding bootcamps - all competing for state funded tuition
| without any regard to quality
| brucethemoose2 wrote:
| > Too bad for my sister who had a masters and is making $35k
| as a teacher in Tennessee which is barely more than minimum
| wage.
|
| This is the real crime.
| ecf wrote:
| It's always depressing when we talk about the latest
| developments in minimum wage and how a day one burger
| flipper at an In and Out in California is making just as
| much as someone with 6 years of schooling and
| responsibility for teaching the next generation.
|
| Oh and that's not even considering how much of her own $$$
| is needed to successfully supply a classroom and how barely
| is tax deductible.
|
| Her experiences almost single handedly altered my political
| viewpoints and who I vote for.
| JumpCrisscross wrote:
| > _my sister who had a masters and is making $35k as a
| teacher Tennessee_
|
| If it's a public school, those loans should begin falling off
| after five years and be forgiven after ten [1].
|
| [1] https://www.forbes.com/advisor/student-loans/teacher-
| student...
| j45 wrote:
| Still not ideal.
| throwaway5959 wrote:
| Nothing is ideal. There's always a compromise. I think
| supporting foster kids is a good idea.
| musicale wrote:
| IIRC PSLF originally required not ten years of elapsed time
| but rather 120 sequential on-time payments in full under a
| qualifying repayment plan, where "on-time" was determined
| by the loan servicer. And you had to keep working beyond
| that time until the application was approved (most were
| rejected) and processed (probably as quickly as government
| departments usually operate.)
|
| Loan servicers had every incentive to thwart this by
| declaring payments late or incomplete, steering borrowers
| into forbearance or non-qualifying repayment plans, etc.
|
| As you can imagine, fewer than 1% of applicants
| successfully had their loans discharged.
|
| They've been trying to fix things since the pandemic for
| people who consolidate to a federal direct loan.
| JumpCrisscross wrote:
| > _120 sequential on-time payments in full under a
| specific repayment plan_
|
| The sequential requirement has been removed, right?
| throwaway5959 wrote:
| So you got a good paying job and had supportive parents. I
| don't get why you're complaining, at least you had parents.
| What is this program costing you?
| nickstinemates wrote:
| This is awesome.
| Bostonian wrote:
| Standardized test scores have been falling, and most high school
| students are unprepared for college. The numbers for foster
| children will be worse. Making college free regardless of
| academic preparation (the article does not mention any) is a bad
| idea.
|
| https://www.edweek.org/teaching-learning/new-graduates-act-s...
| Only about 1 in 5 U.S. high school students students graduated
| prepared to take college classes in English, reading, math, and
| science in 2022, according to new data from the college testing
| firm ACT.
|
| Average performance on the composite ACT fell for the fifth year
| in a row, to 19.8 out of 36 points in the class of 2022--the
| lowest performance since 1991.
|
| Across all racial and ethnic groups, only Asian students improved
| in average scores, from 24.5 points in 2018 to 24.7 in 2022.
| Black students' composite scores fell from 16.8 to 16.1 points;
| Hispanic students from 18.8 to 17.7 points; and white students
| from 22.2 to 21.3 points during that time.
| Me1000 wrote:
| Remedial classes help bring students up to speed without
| slowing down students who performed better in high school. It's
| always been true that not every student who graduates High
| School received the same education as their peers who went to a
| different school. Being behind doesn't not necessarily mean
| you're bound for a doomed college experience.
|
| Students grow up a lot during their college years, and part of
| that growing up is recognizing this is the time in your life to
| work hard because it may be your last opportunity to get a
| quality education.
|
| The students that don't take advantage of it will drop out, the
| students that do will have been given an opportunity they
| otherwise wouldn't have. It's all around a good thing to give
| students more opportunities and let them decide if it's right
| for themselves.
| jrockway wrote:
| Don't people with the lowest test scores benefit the most? If
| you already know everything, what's the point of going to
| school?
| pessimizer wrote:
| The common belief among all Harrison Bergeron referencers is
| that resources should be concentrated on those who need them
| the least, because those are the people who have shown
| _merit._
| [deleted]
| analog31 wrote:
| Not necessarily. At some level you run the risk of not being
| able to get through college at all. Accreditation requires
| courses to be conducted at a certain level. In fact as I
| understand it the correlation to success in college is how
| the standardized test companies originally sold themselves.
| My college math advisor was a consultant for one of those
| companies.
|
| Now, I hope California has included community colleges and
| trade schools in this program, where some of those students
| might stand a better chance.
|
| Also, the stuff tested by the tests is pretty remedial to
| begin with.
| nvahalik wrote:
| That depends. Are the test scores because they don't care? Or
| are the scores reflective of someone without means?
|
| On the former, probably not. They'll just suck up the oxygen
| in the room.
|
| The latter? Sure, they could benefit immensely.
| kortilla wrote:
| The test is to ensure you know enough to be able to get
| something out of college and not slow all of the other
| students down.
|
| It's not testing if you already know college materials.
| kevinventullo wrote:
| The tests only cover high school level material, while
| colleges courses take that material as a prerequisite and
| build on top of it.
| eropple wrote:
| _> Making college free regardless of academic preparation (the
| article does not mention any) is a bad idea._
|
| Where does it say that acceptance is guaranteed?
| whartung wrote:
| It can also act as an incentive for the student to do better
| if they know there's actually a college program waiting for
| them.
| benatkin wrote:
| Community colleges are included in the program.
|
| This seems to be a part of a guaranteed jobs program. Wish we
| were moving to a basic income program but I'm convinced that
| we will need one or the other or some combination of the two.
| Jobs at a community college would be ideal to replace some of
| the early jobs that would be eliminated by AI.
| giantg2 wrote:
| I would assume a guaranteed job system (with a disability
| component) is a form of basic income.
| musicale wrote:
| As I understand it, faculty positions at community colleges
| usually require graduate degrees and tend to have many
| applicants for few slots.
|
| I don't expect that community colleges will be greatly
| increasing their faculty sizes.
| zffr wrote:
| My understanding is that the Fostering Futures program only
| affects tuition costs, not admission probability. Foster
| students will still need to work hard to get into the state
| schools that offer them free tuition.
|
| If anything, this policy may (slightly) increase the average
| test scores at California state universities. Now that foster
| students can attend for free, it means there will be more
| applicants, and this means the universities can be more
| selective with who they admit.
| permo-w wrote:
| >Across all racial and ethnic groups, only Asian students
| improved in average scores, from 24.5 points in 2018 to 24.7 in
| 2022. Black students' composite scores fell from 16.8 to 16.1
| points; Hispanic students from 18.8 to 17.7 points; and white
| students from 22.2 to 21.3 points during that time.
|
| I wonder if there were any earth-shattering global-scale events
| in that time period that could be skewing the numbers? no, I
| can't think of any
| Waterluvian wrote:
| 64% of foster youth graduating high school is far far higher than
| I thought it would be. I'm beyond delighted by this. And if that
| 64% has free access to post-secondary... that's a cycle breaking
| opportunity.
| hotpotamus wrote:
| I wonder how many non-foster kids graduate high school?
| bushbaba wrote:
| In California it's ~85% of high school students graduate on
| average across all demographics
|
| https://www.cde.ca.gov/ds/ad/datasummary.asp
| giantg2 wrote:
| Every time I see these numbers I'm shocked at how it's not
| >98%.
| serf wrote:
| the high school era in ones' life has a lot of
| opportunity for personal hardship; in many ways it's the
| beginning of personal responsibility for a lot of people.
|
| in other words : it's less likely that an elementary
| school student has to juggle an unwanted pregnancy, an
| estranged family, and a job at McDonalds; it's not that
| uncommon later on.
| TheDudeMan wrote:
| I wonder if this will cause any parents to give their kids up in
| an effort to let them attend college.
| getmeinrn wrote:
| This is what affirmative action should be... helping people out
| based on their individual situation, not because their skin color
| or gender.
| j45 wrote:
| Are you commenting on not comment on things that would to apply
| to you?
|
| It can be easy to say what's good for another and how to solve
| them when their problems aren't ones you have grown up or lived
| through.
| [deleted]
| lotsofpulp wrote:
| I do not understand why it should be limited to foster kids.
|
| Just make the schools free for all, and collect with higher
| marginal income / wealth taxes.
|
| It should not be dependent on parents' status either. I got
| zero aid due to my parents, but I also got zero from my
| parents.
| er4hn wrote:
| Assuming the best intentions of those running this, there may
| not be enough money in the budget for it to be free for
| everyone.
| ttfkam wrote:
| Somehow European countries pull it off without bankrupting
| themselves.
| WalterBright wrote:
| If it's all free, it'll be just like the public school
| system.
| lotsofpulp wrote:
| It all does not have to be free, just a government funded
| option to provide a floor. Public school was my only saving
| grace, being from an immigrant family that did not know
| English or how to navigate America.
|
| Although, I also do not think government needs to pay for
| free schooling for 17 years. Can easily cut some fluff and
| drop that to 15 years, and still give people a solid
| foundation equivalent to a Bachelors.
| mmanfrin wrote:
| Affirmative action was to address _systemic_ inequalities, not
| individual ones. Bringing it up in an article about foster kids
| and then further including the bit about gender feels like
| flamebait.
| lockhouse wrote:
| Ironically affirmative action _is_ systemic racism itself, no
| matter how well intentioned.
| PierceJoy wrote:
| True, but many forms of discrimination are legal and good.
| Minimum age to drive is ageism, but I think we would all
| agree that it's a good form of discrimination. You say "no
| matter how well intentioned" as if the intention isn't
| important. But intention and outcome are both very
| important and determine whether a given form of
| discrimination is good or bad.
| desireco42 wrote:
| Pretty much I thought the same thing, this is the right thing
| to do, everybody benefits, nobody is getting less from this.
|
| I am almost amazed how they managed to do the right thing...
| asveikau wrote:
| In the United States, a lot of times the individual situation
| is correlated to their skin color.
|
| The condition of being descendants of slaves, or people who
| faced other forms of official discrimination cited in the
| prevention of intergenerational wealth such as redlining,
| blockbusting or unfavorable treatment in the GI bill, etc., is
| ultimately an individual situation for each individual
| affected.
|
| The idea that you can dismiss that as not an individual
| hardship -- though it kind of is for those impacted -- strikes
| me as pretty much a word game, nothing more. Not unlike the
| word games American laws started to use when they could no
| longer punish people _de jure_ for their race.
| lolinder wrote:
| I don't think anyone here is denying that there is a
| correlation, but there's a very legitimate question over
| whether policy should target the correlated trait (skin
| color) or the hardship itself (poverty) when trying to fix
| the problem.
| asveikau wrote:
| The issue is, a lot of problems have been nominally
| "fixed". But the black community on average has not caught
| up with the gaps created and re-enforced by these earlier
| systems. eg. They didn't get to participate as much as
| white peers in housing booms due to redlining,
| blockbusting, etc. So if you started out European-American
| in 1930 [random 20th century year], or having the same
| wages and being black in that same year, odds are pretty
| good descendants of the latter are doing poorer, due to
| multiple racist housing policies.
| lolinder wrote:
| If they haven't caught up, that's presumably true by
| several concrete metrics, correct? So the question still
| is: why target skin color (the correlated trait) instead
| of those metrics?
|
| I'm not staking out a position here, I haven't made up my
| mind myself. I'm just pointing out that OP raised a valid
| point which you didn't really address.
| axlee wrote:
| How many slaves in the family tree should someone have to
| qualify? Should only atrocities performed by the USA count?
| How far back should we go?
|
| It's a lot easier to quantify and equalize the situation here
| and now rather than to try to make up for a future that could
| have been, and for which no living being is responsible. The
| past is complex and blurry, and families aren't a straight
| line. And generally, people aren't bound by their ancestor's
| misdeeds.
|
| Poor people should get more help from society in the US,
| that's a fact: race might be a strong predictor for poverty,
| but the best signal for poverty remains income and wealth,
| right here and right now.
|
| Why bother looking at anything else? Are poor whites or
| asians somehow more blameable for their poverty than poor
| blacks? Should a successful black person get reparations from
| a white hobo, simply based on their lineage (that none of
| them have control on)?
| asveikau wrote:
| I agree, it's hard to codify. But there is undoubtedly a
| large group of people, often identified by their race, that
| face disproportionate hardship and continued to be legally
| discriminated against well after slavery was abolished. And
| note that I mentioned other, post-slavery problems, and you
| jump right into "how many slaves??"
| themitigating wrote:
| There were racist laws all the way up to late 1960s.
| pessimizer wrote:
| Affirmative action shouldn't ever have been a contest with
| prizes for the most unfortunate. It was sold as a way to fix
| the wrongs of slavery. Having been enslaved legally in the US
| is not a race, it's an atrocity.
|
| The reason we should be paying for foster kids' college is
| because the state is their parent, so it's our responsibility.
| In a country that wasn't shit, regular people would be jealous
| of how kids who were wards of the state lived, and how well-
| raised they were. There's no clearer illustration of our values
| than the fact that _children_ who, through no fault of their
| own, have become the responsibility of the state are treated
| like unwanted trash. The idea that a society like that could
| figure out how to ethically treat prisoners or immigrants is
| laughable.
| themitigating wrote:
| It wasn't just about slavery but also racist laws that
| existed until the 70s~.
| bagacrap wrote:
| > regular people would be jealous of how kids who were wards
| of the state lived
|
| In this utopia you describe, I'd think _all_ kids lived like
| kings.
| BurningFrog wrote:
| Status is relative. If everyone is a king, no one is a
| king.
| j45 wrote:
| Learn like kings
|
| Grow like kings
|
| Dream like kings
|
| Give back like kings
| noah_buddy wrote:
| History is not my forte but it's funny to use kings in
| this metaphor.
| pessimizer wrote:
| Utopia has a really low bar if we get it from treating
| foster kids like middle-class kids.
| steve_adams_86 wrote:
| I agree completely. Something so striking about the situation
| as well is that on balance, we have a staggering amount of
| wealth to share with the less fortunate.
|
| Yet these are children, specifically, who deserve every
| opportunity we can afford them by default. Not "hopeless
| addicts" or some other group deemed not worth saving by so
| many of us, but people quite literally the epitome of worth
| saving. These people need every ounce of reassurance that we
| care and that they can integrate and function in society.
| That they deserve opportunity as anyone else does.
|
| If we had to be self serving we could look at it like "each
| one of these people is statistically far more likely to be a
| burden on my own children in the future, so a small
| investment now could save a lot later", but we seem to fail
| even in being selfish about it. I find this topic heart
| breaking.
| pessimizer wrote:
| For me, state wards are one of the four metrics for judging
| the quality of a country.
|
| _Wards of the state:_ our responsibility, through no fault
| of their own.
|
| _Prisoners:_ our responsibility, their fault.
|
| _Immigrants:_ not our responsibility, but an indication of
| how well we can manage our economy. We should be able to
| put anybody who comes here to work.
|
| _Emigrants:_ we should let people leave who don 't want to
| be here.
|
| The first three are connected because there's no way to
| sustain providing anything for prisoners and immigrants
| that you don't provide for regular citizens. Wards of the
| state are the nation's children; there's nothing that
| normal citizens get that they shouldn't get. If they don't
| get anything, normal citizens are getting less than
| nothing.
| shric wrote:
| > Prisoners: our responsibility, their fault.
|
| What percentage (approximately) of prisoners in the
| United States would you categorize as "their fault" and
| not some product of their upbringing/situation?
| nverno wrote:
| > Wards of the state: our responsibility
|
| People that really feel this responsibility become foster
| parents. But saying the state should deal with them isn't
| taking on that responsibility - at the end of the day
| actual people need to be their parents.
| jewayne wrote:
| > we have a staggering amount of wealth to share with the
| less fortunate
|
| Many Americans will stop you at that first word. Who is
| this _we_ you speak of?
|
| If the pandemic taught me anything, it's that to all too
| many Americans the most important freedom is freedom from
| strangers' problems. They don't want to see them, they
| don't want to hear them, and they sure as hell don't want
| to pay for them.
|
| Now, if THEY happen to have that problem, that's a
| different story...after all THEY are real people,
| unlike...checks notes..."foster kids".
| throwawaysleep wrote:
| > regular people would be jealous of how kids who were wards
| of the state lived
|
| Given that the money to do that would have been taken from
| those parents, you can see why in a democracy parents would
| object to having their resources stolen for government kids
| to have better lives over their own.
| pessimizer wrote:
| They should give their kids up if they don't want them.
| nonethewiser wrote:
| > In a country that wasn't shit, regular people would be
| jealous of how kids who were wards of the state lived, and
| how well-raised they were.
|
| Actually this sounds completely dystopian. In what world
| should people really wish they were foster kids? Its no
| wonder people warn against an effort to destroy the nuclear
| family.
| slashdev wrote:
| Do reparations for slavery even make logical sense? Please
| cut me some slack here, by the nature of the world we live
| in, I have not uttered these thoughts to another human being,
| and they might have obvious flaws. It's tough when you can't
| talk about ideas out of fear of the consequences.
|
| I think nobody argues that it's a vile, morally repugnant
| thing to enslave another human being. But that was a long
| time ago, and all those slaves and the people who enslaved
| them are all dead.
|
| The descendants of those slaves are now much wealthier and
| better off by pretty much any metric than their relatives who
| were not enslaved. How do you make an argument that those
| descendants are victims in need of reparations? No crime was
| committed against them directly, and they seem to have
| benefited from the crimes committed against their ancestors.
|
| I must stress that this is not in any way excusing or
| justifying the wrongs that occurred. But how would you make
| an argument for reparations, given how things turned out?
| throwawaycities wrote:
| Just to play devils advocate...
|
| Foster children are not a protected class under the law.
|
| Perhaps they foster kids could or even should be a protected
| class, however unlike most protected classes that have face
| historical systematic discrimination codified in law, the
| general hardships of foster children are not based in unjust
| laws.
|
| I have worked in Dependency law (ie with children that have
| been abused, abandoned and neglected) which deals a lot with
| foster kids.
|
| I favor programs that provide funding for foster kids like this
| and provide assistance when they "age out" of care, but it is a
| broad brushstroke and doesn't take into consideration
| individual situations as you suggest. In other words foster
| children are not all alike nor are their situations. Some live
| in group homes and they are just a number or a check for foster
| parents, some live in loving and supportive homes, even
| sometimes in the homes of relatives when parental rights were
| lost but they are still considered foster children. Some become
| foster kids at 17 and others are born into it. There is
| everything in between.
|
| It is about the equivalent in terms of diversity of situations
| as being a minority/protected class that has historically been
| discriminated against.
| ttfkam wrote:
| Oh no! Some young adults might have an easier time attending
| college even when their lives weren't as shitty as others.
|
| Squint and we might start looking like college tuitions in
| Europe.
| JumpCrisscross wrote:
| > _what affirmative action should be... helping people out
| based on their individual situation_
|
| Also, just helping them out. Nobody gets hurt. This isn't
| creating an allotment of seats for foster kids. The selection
| process, and thus odds, are the same for them and everyone
| else.
| bushbaba wrote:
| Generally state colleges will take any applicant who meets
| the pre-set bar. Where as tier 1 universities are more a zero
| sum game.
| INGSOCIALITE wrote:
| This is exactly correct. Fairness and equality.
| j45 wrote:
| Equality is very different than equity.
|
| https://onlinepublichealth.gwu.edu/resources/equity-vs-
| equal...
| JumpCrisscross wrote:
| > _Equality is very different than equity_
|
| How old are these definitions?
|
| I've only seen them used this way in public policy
| circles, and left-leaning ones at that. It's also totally
| discontinuous with the treatment of equality in classical
| literature.
|
| Put another way, isn't equity just a masking term for
| top-to-bottom wealth transfers?
| BurningFrog wrote:
| I think "Equity" was launched to the general public 2-3
| years ago.
| j45 wrote:
| Maybe the new affirmative action is visible minorities or
| other groups just get free education?
|
| But then you'd need a K-12 system that doesn't fail them or
| set them up for not succeeding by getting them into lower
| stream courses.
| JumpCrisscross wrote:
| Free prenatal and neonatal care seems like an obvious first
| step. It's literally taking care of the unborn and babies,
| so they have a healthy start to life. (I similarly believe
| education, school breakfasts and lunches, and pediatric
| care should be free.)
| ttfkam wrote:
| We could sidestep all the drama by letting anyone who meets
| the academic qualifications attend public universities and
| colleges without tuition (or at least an insubstantial
| fees). We might actually end up with a system like we had
| 75 years ago... but with less overt racism and sexism.
| happytiger wrote:
| About time. These kids needs all the love and support we can give
| them.
|
| Now let's invest in a free state education for every citizen!
| WalterBright wrote:
| We already do. There's probably a free public school in your
| neighborhood.
| ldjkfkdsjnv wrote:
| As a raging capitalist, I am for this
| 999900000999 wrote:
| Now in a better world we'd drop a word from this sentence and
| make it free for all state residents. That's closer to what it
| used to be.
|
| Realistically this doesn't change much since it's extremely
| unlikely a foster kid wouldn't qualify for a full ride prior to
| this.
|
| The only people who really get screwed are middle class families
| who make too much to qualify for aid, but can't really afford to
| pay for school.
| armchairhacker wrote:
| I thought this was already a thing. It turns out to be partially
| covered in 35 states:
|
| > As of 2021, there are 35 states that have some type of
| statewide postsecondary education tuition waiver or scholarship
| program for students who have been in foster care.
|
| > 24 states have statewide tuition waivers: Alaska[1], Arizona,
| California, Connecticut, Florida, Georgia, Illinois, Kansas,
| Kentucky, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Missouri,
| Nevada, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New Mexico, Oklahoma, Oregon,
| Pennsylvania, Texas, Utah, West Virginia, (Dark blue color on the
| map)
|
| > 4 states have state funded grant programs for students in
| foster care are: Ohio, Rhode Island, Tennessee, Virginia. (Light
| blue color on the map)
|
| > 7 states have state funded scholarship programs for students in
| foster care are: Alabama, Arkansas, Iowa, Michigan, New York,
| North Carolina, and Washington. (Purple color on the map)
|
| > 16 states and the District of Columbia have only the Federal
| Chafee Educational Training Voucher: Colorado, Delaware, District
| of Columbia, Hawaii, Idaho, Indiana, Louisiana, Mississippi,
| Montana, Nebraska, North Dakota, South Carolina, South Dakota,
| Vermont, Wisconsin and Wyoming (Yellow color on the map)
|
| https://depts.washington.edu/fostered/tuition-waivers-state
| (bonus points for software gore right below the title)
|
| What I was thinking of was the Chafee Educational Training
| Voucher, which gives up to a $5000/year reimbursement:
|
| > Students can get up to $5,000 per academic year based on cost
| of attendance, available funds, the student's unmet financial
| need.
|
| > Note: For the federal fiscal year 2022, the voucher's maximum
| annual amount was temporarily increased to $12,000. On Oct. 1,
| 2022, the maximum award will revert to $5,000 per year.
|
| https://studentaid.gov/sites/default/files/foster-youth-vouc...
| Avshalom wrote:
| N.B. in New Mexico we recently made state school free for all
| residents.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2023-07-23 23:00 UTC)