I don't really care about high tax rates so much if the basics are there for me and everyone else. But, you know, I'm a bit of a socialist. So there's that.
I think it's been discussed here before, but one thing that's quite relevant when discussing Finland is that they don't have private schools.
I've heard all sorts of things because my child is in a GT magnet that is largely white and Asian contained within a largely black school. Many people dislike the model and are vocal about it. My opinion is that her school simply makes these inequalities rather more starkly visible, which makes people uncomfortable. But...they're there anyway. Sending your child to a private school or locating yourself in an affluent school zone so you don't have to look the issue of racial/socioeconomic inequality in the face isn't really any more defensible than sending your child to a magnet like DD's. At DD's school, at least the advantaged parents may be contributing to improving education for the poorer kids because, as a matter of logistics, their involvement with the school will benefit the gen ed students to some degree. I don't see that my friends who have kids at privates or the "good" schools are doing anything for these kids.
I do see some benefits from the GT magnet to the general ed population at DD's school. The question is whether the downside (psychological effects must exist when kids can very clearly see that, in this case, the gen ed students are 95% black and the GT students are probably 85% white/Asian) negates those plusses.
But then we can't forget the benefits to kids like my DD. We have lots of cultural capital and are well-educated, but lower-income (somewhat by choice). There are a lot of kids in the magnet like us--their parents are bright and culturally advantaged but they are zoned for poor and faltering schools due to family income. The magnet provides an out for kids whose parents don't have other options. I imagine this is very similar at the NYC school in the article.
