This is an interesting article by Erin at Minnpost. I remember back when I used to see the taxis pulling up at the Rdale schools.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
skip to main |
skip to sidebar
Raising social involvement, self awareness and self improvement topics, because our communities are the sum of our personal beliefs, behaviors, action or inaction. Only "we" can improve our family, work place, school, city, country, etc.
Search This Blog
Useful Links
YOU CAN HELP NOW !!!
Tell friends, relatives, co-workers, neighbors, politicians, etc to google give2attain or send them this address now !!!http://give2attain.blogspot.com/ Then I promise to keep posting unique and/or helpful thoughts, and hosting open polite dialogue. Thank You !!!
Trying for Balance
G2A Email and Rules
email: give2get@live.com
G2A will only discuss things that are general public knowledge. (ie no privileged info)
G2A will only link to public / posted documents. (ie school and other websites)
G2A will not post based on singular specific personal conversations or information without permission from the information provider.
G2a will only post after observing common themes, issues, discussions, etc. (ie it is out there and people are talking about it)
G2A will moderate any comments that apply derogatory labels. Be it to G2A, another commenter, group of people, etc.
G2A will moderate any comment that includes offensive language. (ie swearing)
G2A will only discuss things that are general public knowledge. (ie no privileged info)
G2A will only link to public / posted documents. (ie school and other websites)
G2A will not post based on singular specific personal conversations or information without permission from the information provider.
G2a will only post after observing common themes, issues, discussions, etc. (ie it is out there and people are talking about it)
G2A will moderate any comments that apply derogatory labels. Be it to G2A, another commenter, group of people, etc.
G2A will moderate any comment that includes offensive language. (ie swearing)
Blog Archive
-
▼
2018
(325)
-
▼
August
(28)
- China is Oceania from 1984
- MDE Northstar School Accountability
- Social Media and Free Speech
- Trade Commentary
- Who Is Economy Good For?
- Double Std? How to Behave Now
- McCain Misunderstood
- Trump Should Resign?
- Why Mandatory Health Insurance is Good
- Let President Shut Down Media?
- Twin Cities Past Desegregation Effort
- How Does Sarah Huckabee Sanders Do It?
- Luck vs Effort
- GOP Has a New Face of Evil
- John Dean: Rat or Hero?
- Truth isn’t Truth
- The Problem with Keith
- ObamaCare vs TrumpCare
- Freedom of Speech
- MN Primaries
- Democrats and Socialism Approval
- Romney for President
- Is Laura Ingraham Speaking for Many?
- National Debt and Higher Interest Rates
- Jury Notice Page 2
- Did NYT Make Good Choice?
- Mueller Probe Harming USA?
- Blevins Protest Commentary
-
▼
August
(28)
About Me
- John
- I am married and we have 3 adult daughters and a dog. We live in Plymouth MN. My interests are learning, communicating, home improvement projects, motorcycling, boating, and other outside activities. Thank you for reading my blog and have a great day !!!
98 comments:
I wish they would quit attributing poor schooling to a matter of race, and attribute poor schooling to poor schooling, as Chicago did in their successful lawsuit. In my experience, bussing more or less negates any gains from an improved education environment, and that is ASSUMING parents and kids are seeking it out. That is, they should be allowed to move to better schools, not just some place "needing" some black faces.
Well as we discussed here... The schools with the best results are Whiter and Wealthier...
I wonder why that would be??? If the school is the major factor...
Best Performing MN Schools
Struggling Schools
I don't believe I have ever said that demographics didn't matter. I have said that if a school needs more money to adapt to demographic challenges in their students, they should have it. And they DO. The problem is they never adapt to the demographic challenges. And I am saddened that we continue to use race as a proxy for poverty and low achievement. If I could magically turn that poor black kid white, he wouldn't get one point better on his basic skills test, nor would his school teach him any better.
From your cite:
"Under the Department of Education's ranking system, the lowest performing schools are eligible for help from state education experts. But neither district plans to fully tap into the state's assistance."
Unfortunately...
Race is correlated to poverty
and
Poverty is correlated to "poor schools"
This is a very interesting link
And of course...
Poverty is correlated to Low Kindergarten Readiness
Another interesting source.
"More than one in five U.S. children live in “official” poverty today, with an even higher rate for Black and Hispanic children and for those in families headed by a single parent. Among the world’s 35 richest countries, the United States holds the distinction of ranking second highest in child poverty. A large body of research continues to document the negative effects of poverty on children and their later life outcomes. Children growing up in poverty complete less schooling, work and earn less as adults, are more likely to receive public assistance, and have poorer health. Boys growing up in poverty are more likely to be arrested as adults and their female peers are more likely to give birth outside of marriage.
Researchers have estimated that the costs associated with child poverty total about $500 billion per year, or 4 percent of Gross Domestic Product (GDP).
While education has been envisioned as the great equalizer, this promise has been more myth than reality. Today, the achievement gap between the poor and the non-poor is twice as large as the achievement gap between Black and White students. The tracking of differences in the cognitive performance of toddlers, elementary and middle school students, and college-bound seniors shows substantial differences by income and/or poverty status. These differences undoubtedly contribute to the increasing stratification in who attends and graduates from college, limiting economic and social mobility and serving to perpetuate the gap between rich and poor."
"The report goes on to identify 156 high-performing "spotlight schools" where African-American and Latino students score highly. These schools, half of them with relatively high poverty, show what's possible."
And there you are. Demography is not destiny, and should never be an excuse for schools to do poorly. Mixing the races will do nought for achievement. Raising achievement will raise achievement.
Anything is possible, given the right mix of Parent, Student and School Qualities. However we need systems that start before age 5 and do not leave out the truly unlucky kids.
Remember that race and poverty are not the cause of poor academic performance... The cause is incapable or neglectful parent(s)...
Great Schools Changes Criteria
Great Schools New Criteria
However we need systems that start before age 5 and do not leave out the truly unlucky kids."
No, we don't. First we need to get every school working as well as those 156, without adding another panacea on top of the dozens that have already been tried and failed. Let us get MN's "gap" down to what other states do, and much better, and THEN we can talk about what else we can do to improve academics for those who still lag behind.
And just mixing skin colors isn't going to help.
All the statistics on the ill effects of poverty simply prove what you always say, that correlation is not causation. Yes, poverty correlates with poor results in life. But poor results in life include poverty, so where does the cycle get broken, if not in our "free and equal" public school system?
Please remember that our gap is as high as it is because many of our students do better than those in most states. :-)
Now as noted elsewhere, I am apparently more ambitious than you.
I am happy to help children right away at home and at school. Not just for the 7 hours / day, ~174 days per year for 13 years that you are interested in.
I guess I am more concerned with immediate and proven results than in some future, not readily achieved, supposedly "better" solution. In fact, if we can raise achievement among those currently on the wrong end of the "gap," as we KNOW how to do, then in a dozen years we will make a real dent in the problems you are concerned about, by breaking the cycle of poverty. The problem "Takes care of itself."
“Proven”?
A sliver of the schools do better with a sliver of the students and you consider something proven?
I don’t think so... Too many factors not measured.
I think factors like graduation rate, proficiency as measured by exam, and college entrance are pretty important factors, and they are measured. This constitutes proven success. Now the questions are why you hate that "sliver of students" so much you would deny them the opportunities they now have, and why only a "sliver of schools" are doing what all schools should be doing.
Those are excellent measures of success, unfortunately they do not prove causation.
Th Wayzata schools have some of the best metrics in the State, and yet we have no idea how they would perform if the North Minneapolis student body replaced theirs tomorrow.
There are some charters, magnets, etc that do bad, okay or great with a self selected sample of kids from poor households. And yet we have no idea how they would perform if the North Minneapolis student body replaced theirs tomorrow.
Based on the experience of the Harlem Children's Zone first failures... You really should read Whatever It Takes
What you have proven is that each school and, ideally, each student, must receive education geared to their abilities, strengths and weaknesses. I think much of our problem is trying to use Edina education approaches in North Minneapolis. No. Mpls needs to ADAPT to the people it serves. Picking the kids up and moving to a school DEFINITELY not geared for them will only make matters worse. I see it all the time. I don't know why anybody thinks that is a remedy for the gap.
You know what, I'm going to agree with you, that the best approach is to do BOTH-- improve nurturing 0-5, and then attend a school with high expectations and strong individual teachers and support. I notice even Obama promised to "start 20 HCZs across the country." More lies? Or just more difficult than anybody imagines? Absent that holistic approach, why aren't more schools doing what Mississippi did, which is to separate kids by "preparedness" at kindergarten and concentrate efforts (best teachers and more individual attention) on the lowest achievers? I'll tell you why. Because the "D" class was almost all black and the "A" class all white. Yet the most rapid gains were made by the D students, to where they were all more or less equal by 3rd grade. We CAN'T have that!
We have discussed Mississippi's terrible results before. Not much there to learn.
As for why schools with poor students do not get the resources they need... It is quite simple. Wealthy smart influential people lobby to ensure their children and communities get the resources they want... Be it for sports, arts, advanced classes, best teachers, etc..
Or those wealthy smart influential people volunteer or donate to make sure it happens.
Unfortunately the poor unlucky kids of N Mpls just pray that their Parent(s) will keep them fed and housed.
As for Obama wanting to replicate HCZ. It looks like he did try.
Promise Neighborhoods
Now when will some of those generous rich generous Conservatives that you are always talking about step up and help fund it like the guy who enabled HCZ.
Since you do not think our local / state personnel are capable of doing so... Please remember that you are the one against funding health and human services, early childhood education and parent education.
Really? I am against throwing money at problems and seeing zero or even negative results? Shame on me!
OK, your cite answers the question. "...impossible to identically replicate." So, what do we do now, coach?
And you can pick on Mississippi today all you want. My experience was years ago, before government decided that mixing the races was more important than having kids actually learn, regardless of race. You keep wanting to deny my personal experience, and that is really not convincing.
Oh, and you do know that the schools with the poorest results in Minnesota get as much as twice the average funding, do you not? That school funding (beyond some bare minimum) is essentially irrelevant to outcomes?
Twice as much funding...
Source please...
Minnesota Dept. of Education. Or take my word for it.
After the years of misinformation you have noted...
I think I will look into it further when time permits.
Good. I'm on solid ground on this one. I've got the chart.
Let me know when you find out that, indeed, funding is almost irrelevant to performance, except that statistically, more funding correlates to LOWER academic achievement.
I still say that the way to improve academic performance in schools is to improve academic performance in schools, rather than nearly-irrelevant second-effect factors like racial balance.
I am not interested in racial balance...
I am interested in capable and responsible parent(s), social workers and teachers doing right by unlucky children.
Well, then you better get in line and stop this ill-intentioned lawsuit, because it will do nothing to improve outcomes for kids, underprivileged or otherwise. Just another liberal social engineering scheme seen as a panacea for the liberal failures that are the public schools. When parents are afraid to send their kids to school for safety reasons, or discouraged because they kids aren't learning anything, it is (or ought to be) pretty difficult to blame the parents for the situation they did not create.
I am against this particular law suit and pretty much anything "race based"...
As for "who owns a problem"... In your view does a city government with crime and poverty problems then own all responsibility for the actions of it's citizens? And the on going crime and poverty?
Or do the citizens living there and committing/ tolerating the crime need to change before the city can improve?
That is an interesting statement of the problem. Let me try to parse it out.
- Criminals are responsible for the crimes they commit.
- the "community" does not "tolerate" the crimes; they are the victims of it. They may tolerate some non-criminal behaviors that are not helpful to themselves.
- The first duty of government is to the safety and security of its citizens. To the degree they do not make the effort from some "politically correct" standpoint, it is their fault. When they do better, the community gets "better" in terms of reduced crime, more hopefulness and gains to the human condition all around.
In short, the situation is not going to change by itself. The existing motivations and conditions will persist until changed by an outside force, like better policing or better education. Or both.
So you are saying we should give the government more power until they can control the behaviors and life choices of their citizens?
Interesting coming from you. :-)
Now the reality is that the inner city "status quo" public schools are given the children of the most dysfunctional adults we have in our society.
I think you would agree that most of the smart capable responsible parent(s) have moved out of those communities, or have gotten their child enrolled in a magnet, charter or private.
So from above... Should these schools be run like prisons to ensure these most unlucky kids do not provide harm to their class mates, teachers, etc?
I mean school choice has already left a very unique and unlucky student body in these schools.
It is an interesting problem...
Government should use wisely the power they already have, or that they have arrogated unto themselves.
Interesting description, "...the schools be run like prisons...," since the poor kids do not have the means to leave and attendance is legally mandatory. Conditions have indeed deteriorated in these schools and neighborhoods, but the combination of police power and education reform can begin to turn around the situation. As far as I know that is the only way this reasonably can be done.
Lean on Me
That is because you are happy subjecting children to being raised by people whose only qualification is that they had unprotected sex...
Which of course should speak to why they are not qualified to be a parent. :-(
And you are happy forcing them into a school that perpetuates and exacerbates their poverty. Apparently your preferred solution is just to abort every poor child. Instantly solves the problem. Or at least, as some have said, let the kid stay home and hand them a check for $150,000 when they turn 18, saving taxpayers the money of /trying/ (supposedly) to educate them.
Actually, no abortions are required with my proposal.
Just an effort to hold parent(s), social services and education adults ALL accountable for doing their job for the good of the children.
None required? That's good. Recommended? Expedient? Taking children from their parents? Required sterilizations? (You HAVE required that one).
And you have never said how you can hold anybody accountable for something that "luck" has created. "unlucky parents" and "unlucky kids" are doomed, apparently. The only adults, it seems, we can hold accountable are educators, who volunteered (and mandated) that children be given to them for the "equal and adequate" education to which they are entitled.
Well here are the details... It seems you are hung up on number 4.
The Angel Adams rule And you would happily let her keep popping out kids...
1.Weaken or eliminate the Public Employee Unions. Their primary purpose is to ensure the senior employees make the most money, receive the best positions and are secure in their employment. These goals are NOT aligned with cost effectively getting the most help to the people who need it. Pay for performance, not years and degrees.
2.Set hard knowledge attainment and/or poverty reduction targets that the bureaucracy managers must hit, and replace them if they don't. No more of these employment contracts where Superintendents get huge buy out clauses when they fail. Pay for performance, not degrees.
3.Make Long Acting Reversible Contraception and the Morning After Pill free and readily available for all. NO baby should be born unless the Baby Maker(s) are 100% wanting the child and feel prepared to care for it. (ie committed to being responsible capable Parents)
4.If a proven irresponsible Baby Maker who is on welfare (ie Angel Adams) gets pregnant. She should be forced to abort or give the Baby up for adoption. And if this happens more than once, her tubes should be tied.
5.The welfare payments and service should be set up to make recipients work, learn, mature and improve their self sufficiency.
6.The male Baby Makers must bear the consequences of their behavior. The female Baby Maker must name the Father so the State can ensure the required child support is paid. The cost may be higher than the money received, but the "free loading Baby Daddy" behavior must be dissuaded.
7.The State must ensure that Baby Makers and the Babies receive training, care, etc until they become a functional family. (ie Parents and Kids) This includes mandatory Parenting classes, Early Childhood Education, Inexpensive quality childcare, etc. Many of the Baby Makers are in this position because their role models were Baby Makers (ie not Parents). Someone has to train them what it means to be a Parent.
Actually rarely do I use the term "unlucky parent(s)"...
It is almost always "unlucky child(ren)" and "irresponsible, incapable and/or neglectful parent(s)"...
As you would be the first to note, the adults could have practiced abstinence until they were financially stable and married. Instead they made a choice to have poorly or un - protected sex and made a baby. Then they made another choice when they did not abort or give the baby up for adoption...
So yes the woman at a minimum voluntarily and of her free will accepted the responsibilities of being a parent. And yes we should hold her and/or them accountable for doing it well.
It is always fascinating that you are for the most part against birth control and abortion, and yet you are fine sending an innocent baby go home with the same irresponsible people who could not use a condom effectively, or just as bad could not afford a condom...
And please remember that I am happy with the following being part of the plan...
1.Weaken or eliminate the Public Employee Unions. Their primary purpose is to ensure the senior employees make the most money, receive the best positions and are secure in their employment. These goals are NOT aligned with cost effectively getting the most help to the people who need it. Pay for performance, not years and degrees.
2.Set hard knowledge attainment and/or poverty reduction targets that the bureaucracy managers must hit, and replace them if they don't. No more of these employment contracts where Superintendents get huge buy out clauses when they fail. Pay for performance, not degrees.
I quibble with the words you use, not necessarily the intent. Like these words:
1.Weaken or eliminate ... Should be "incentivize" (the opposite)
2. must hit
3.Make ... NO baby should be born
4. forced to abort .... her tubes should be tied.
5.to make recipients
6.must bear ... must name
7. must ensure .... mandatory ....
Do not "unlucky kids" go on to become "irresponsible parents"? Where is it easiest to break the cycle through government action? If we offer universal school vouchers, doesn't much of the barrier to achievement and the "gap" go away, followed by a reduction in multi-generational poverty?
I have no objection to reforming the social safety net, but you must admit that the current incentives in the system are largely backwards.
I am guessing your quibble comments have more to do with your confirmation bias filters than my statements.
However if one's number one goal is to ensure:
Babies are raised in homes with capable and dedicated parent(s), and that children are well educated in the public schools...
There will be musts involved.
Now as for the easiest way to break the cycle...
It is definitely not universal school vouchers for the many reasons we have discussed before.
- they occur too late in the child's life (neuro stunting has occurred)
- they in no way ensure the chosen school will perform better (most charters perform same or worse)
- determining the value of said voucher is problematic
- schools will cherry pick easier kids
- they do nothing to change the parent(s) / community
- the truly unlucky kids have incompetent or neglectful parent(s) who will do nothing
I do agree that the incentives and disincentives are flawed.
- Sex education is limited in many parts of the country
- Birth control costs poor women too much
- Irresponsible men do not have to pay for kids they Father
- Mommas still get more money to care for more kids
- Liberals and Conservatives still see making babies as a right, not a privilege, therefore pretty much anyone can have and raise a kid whether they are capable or not.
- Teachers are paid for degrees/years and not based on performance/job challenge.
- Social workers are paid to hand out benefits.
Now as for the easiest way to break the cycle...
It is definitely not universal school vouchers for the many reasons we have discussed before.
* We are going to disagree until you can a least posit a workable alternative, other than forced sterilization or mandatory parenting classes. How about "re-education camps" for single mothers?
- they occur too late in the child's life (neuro stunting has occurred)
* Yes, but is that true for every kid in the public schools? And why doesn't our vaunted Special Ed program help these kids to do much better than they do?
- they in no way ensure the chosen school will perform better (most charters perform same or worse) *they in no way ensure the school will perform worse, and the very fact of choice will, by human nature, cause the parents and kids to do, as individuals, better than they would otherwise. The choice schools tend to get those kids who were doing the most poorly in the publics, so doing "as well" is a big step up. Besides, why DENY them the choice?
- determining the value of said voucher is problematic * Not really. The state aid formula handles that very nicely, and most alternative schools educate for quite a bit less.
- schools will cherry pick easier kids * prove it. AFAIK, most charters have no restrictions.
- they do nothing to change the parent(s) / community *to the contrary. They greatly reduce the hopelessness (and fear) parents have for their kids, the kids find something interesting to do rather than gangbang, parents and kids see the $ value of an education.
- the truly unlucky kids have incompetent or neglectful parent(s) who will do nothing * and you continue to greatly exaggerate their numbers. Let us posit an inner city elementary school with 500 students. You are asserting that, if we gave each parent a check for $6000 (state formula for K-5), that every single one of them would "do nothing" and give it to that same public school? Just giving them that check forces them to "do something" with it.
I do agree that the incentives and disincentives are flawed. * You would think we should be able to wrestle these problems to the ground, eventually, and suggest some realistic initiatives for public policy. But...
- Sex education is limited in many parts of the country * and badly flawed in others. Now we're teaching tykes they have to choose their gender! :-(
- Birth control costs poor women too much * sounds like a moral problem, more than a financial one. $9/month at Walmart, Condoms are even cheaper, unless you're a horny rabbit. Some places they are free.
- Irresponsible men do not have to pay for kids they Father * That one we agree on, but why not offer encouragement/incentives to those men who DO step up? There are a lot of them, NFL stars not included.
- Mommas still get more money to care for more kids. * and you thought me heartless when I brought that up. Oddly enough, there was a time when an additional kid would have cost Momma ALL her welfare check, since it was proof there was a "man in the house." Since then, we've had all virgin births.
- Liberals and Conservatives still see making babies as a right, not a privilege, therefore pretty much anyone can have and raise a kid whether they are capable or not. *Thank the Lord for freedom.
- Teachers are paid for degrees/years and not based on performance/job challenge. *Merit pay and a career ladder separate from administration would be easy to do and highly beneficial, but the DFL won't allow it.
- Social workers are paid to hand out benefits. * That's a tough one. I know most of them would rather help people, but if they do it too well they're out of a job. Need to think about that one.
You are correct. We will continue to disagree.
And hundreds of thousands of children will continue to be neglected and/or abused each year.
An interesting coincidence... The abused / neglected number of "683,000 children per year" is almost as high as the abortion number...
And yet folks are on the Right are fine if a living breathing child is neglected or abused... While they have fits over flushing an 8 week old fetus.
I will never understand the religious right.
And just think... These are only the reported cases... :-(
I don't know where you get your ideas of "the religious right." I doubt you will find many child abusers, and certainly not those tolerant of such, among them. What is fascinating here is that you seem to suggest that the 1% of kids who are abused by their parents are somehow a good reason to ignore the 99% of kids abused by the government's education system. Both are unnecessary and wrong, and even government itself finally recognizes their efforts are inadequate.
ESSA compliance
Not sure what this "extra help" consists of-- probably high-sounding phrases-- but at least we are identifying the problem and putting blame where it belongs, on the schools.
By the way, one of your citations on the incidence of abuse says that poverty only accounts for something like 20% of cases (on 1% of kids). Schools account directly for 100% of educational failures. We should be looking at proximate causes of education failures, not secondary determinants.
See here for more on school accountability report.
As for my views regarding the Religious Right... How can one think well of folks who are:
- anti sex education
- anti birth control
- anti abortion
- anti "license" to parent
- anti parent education
- anti early childhood education
- anti stopping women like Angel Adams from pro-creating
It seems the only things the religious right are for are:
- keeping young people stupid
- ensuring babies are delivered
- enabling parent(s) to parent as they wish
And since poor, neglected and abused kids are more likely to become poor neglecting and/or abusers. It is no wonder so many kids suffer unnecessarily in our country.
Wow. I never thought I would hear such a torrent of vile slanders from you.
From what I know, Christians believe in three things-- Faith, Hope and Charity, fed by Love of our fellow human beings. Your description of the problem seems to insist that a solution is not possible so long as Faith, Hope, Charity and Love are involved. How depressing.
Sorry, I don't see much faith, hope or charity coming from the religious right.
They seem more interested in passing laws to make people behave as they wish they would. At least in the areas of stifling education, birth control, abortion, LGBT rights, etc.
And working to ensure they control who gets their money and in which way. (ie give through Church)
While apparently shielding questionable Parent(s) so they can do as they wish to with their children in their own home...
I think the religious right is a bit like the Priest / Rabbi in the parable of "The Good Samaritan"
Mostly show and little true faith, hope or charity .
This is an interesting piece.
Guardian Under Trump, America's religious right is rewriting its code of ethics
Or this one...
DB Taking Back Christianity From The Religious Right
From the perspective of "What Would Jesus Do".
I wonder what he would think if he knew 1+% (650,000+ per year) of the children in our country are physical, sexually and/or emotionally abused or suffer from neglect... And his Christians in our society supported ignoring what happens in these households...
On the upside, the sinners will burn...
Of course that does not help the innocent young victims. :-(
" and [H]is Christians in our society supported ignoring what happens..." It is a very long way from being unable to help everybody to "ignoring what happens." You are managing, somehow, to insult everybody involved while keeping yourself above it all. My church offers pre-K, day care, tutoring, bag lunches for kids on weekends, and mothers night out. Apparently government isn't doing it, and the parents are unable to do so. They are willing, because they come to us. Now when are you going to quit blaming the victims of the current system AND those trying to help?
That is nice that your church helps a few people... My church and preferred charities do the same...
Now what are you or them doing about...
"1+% (650,000+ per year) of the children in our country are physical, sexually and/or emotionally abused or suffer from neglect..."
Many before the age of 5 years old...
"Preventing Abuse and Neglect
The major reasons for physical and psychological maltreatment of children within the family often are parental feelings of isolation, stress, and frustration. Parents need support and as much information as possible in order to raise their children responsibly. They need to be taught how to cope with their own feelings of frustration and anger without venting them on children. They also need the companionship of other adults who will listen and help during times of crisis."
Signs of abuse before 5
"What can cause parents to hurt their children?
- Too much stress at home and/or school.
- Uncontrolled anger or feelings of frustration.
- Depression; feeling all alone.
- Not enough money for living expenses.
- Violence in the home or in relationships.
- Drug or alcohol abuse: your own or by those close to you.
- Feeling too sick or too tired to cope with a child’s needs."
Child Abuse Stats
You seem perfectly willing to let the perfect be the enemy of the good, or in this case, the enemy of all we can do. You are the one insisting that government somehow compel perfect parents and idyllic lives for their children. I prefer to work with what little reality "we" control as far as the social pathologies that persist all around us. Until the magic happens, I'm still believing that the government education system can and must do better.
I don’t think kids need perfect or idyllic parent(s).
Just fed, prepared for kindergarten, protected and not abused...
However your expectations for how children should be cared for must be pretty low if you see that as perfect.
The problem is that you want them "fed, prepared, protected and not abused" up to YOUR standards, all the while condemning these same parents for being incapable and unwilling to do anything right. I suppose we could pass a law that says people can't abuse their kids... oh, wait... I suppose we could pass a law that says parents have to feed the kids... oh, wait...
The problem is that government can pass all the laws it wants, and people will go right on breaking them. But if government can do something FOR these people, like /giving/ their kids a good education, they will "fall into line."
I heard a debate today, and one of the problems was said to be "too many of these parents do not value education." My comment was that if you offer something of no value, people will value it accurately and you shouldn't complain. "Yes, you have to send your kids to this school, and half of them will graduate. You've got a 50-50 shot." There's a positive sales pitch, yes?
Jerry,
I am certain that these immature poorly educated folks who are barely able to care for themselves can do some things right.
However that does not mean they are capable of meeting the basic needs of a young child.
And if that single young Mother with 2 kids who is barely keeping everyone sheltered, fed, safe, housed, etc gets pregnant again...
Your answer is... Maybe in a generation or two things will get better...
I am not that patient... Besides the facts we discussed previously. Children who are improperly raised for the first 5 years of their life face BIG challenges. No matter which school they attend.
If you want to discuss schools.
OK, but what about the kids OVER age five, already disadvantaged? Do we just throw them away and allow your "miracle" to happen to the NEXT generation? Or do we try to save this one, by having schools adapt and better educate the kids they already have? Any improvement in the multi-generational poverty situation could begin much more quickly-- about 13 years or so.
Please remember, there are no guarantees that your preferred method will even work.
I have yet to see a study in which the charters consistently out perform the traditional schools if they both have a similar student / parent body...
We can continue this discussion on the other post.
Apparently your cite (over on the other post) says that these pre-K scholarships DO work, because they have been proven to work. More schools need to adopt those methods, whatever they are.
Agreed. Anything that helps young unlucky kids and incapable parent(s) is a good thing.
Now how to help the kids with resistant neglectful parent(s)... That is the question?
Let us get the 99% of non-neglectful parents helped first. I talked to several legislators and educators yesterday. What should I be telling them?
Tell them to focus on helping the unlucky kids between 0 and 5 years of age.
The vast majority of us 99% are doing just fine with the current systems.
And those children are at highest risk of neglect, abuse, malnutrition, etc...
Many of those parent(s) are getting paid by us to raise the children well... Now let's make sure they are held accountable for using our tax dollars well.
Again you focus on "neglect, abuse, malnutrition"? Those are the 1%, and I refuse to let that tail wag the dog of improving education and yes, if you want to extend that effective, CHOICE paradigm into pre-K, I can handle that but we MUST have a better K-12 system for them to go into to. Easy stuff first.
Yes I would prefer to focus on the unluckiest kids...
And since that 1% mostlly resides within the poor single mother sub-group, the percentage is much higher than 1% of that sub-group.
We know that child(ren) in poor single parent households are at high risk of abuse, neglect, crime, educational failure, etc
And yet you wish to just trust the parent(s) and blame the K-12 system for all our social ills.. I will never understand.
"I will never understand." At last something we can agree on. :->
1% is 1%. Somewhere between that 99% "naturally" or "inevitably" failing and the 14-50% (depending on school) NOW failing, lies the opportunity. I'm not blaming the schools for social ills, or even for not fixing the social ills. I am blaming them for failure to educate every child to the best of his/her ability to learn. I will blame "society" for society's ills and, more particularly, those very rare parents who are deliberately abusing their kids-- which is against the law.
You seem to be content to follow the old adage, "if you can't fix the problem, fix the blame." I want to fix at least part of the problem, the part we KNOW how to fix.
As we are discussing at the other post. You have no proof that your dream will work... Just faith...
I do find it interesting that you seem to deny the concept of "personal responsibility"...
Above you want to blame society and schools for the personal choices people have made...
- having pre-marital sex
- not using birth control effectively
- getting pregnant and keeping the baby(ies)
- not striving towards continuing education
- staying in communities that offer little opportunity
Are you sure you are not a Liberal... It seems you want to blame everyone except the parent(s) for their poor choices...
I think responsibility should fall on those responsible. Taxpayers are not responsible for poverty. They ARE responsible for funding the public education (or at least education of the public, two totally different things). People who make bad personal decisions about having and raising children or seeking out work, ought to bear that responsibility. Who else? But the State has mandated that every child be educated, and provides the schools for that purpose. Who is responsible if that school fails to do so? So long as we allow the schools to blame parents, they have no incentive whatsoever to improve.
As for the dream, while not widespread, vouchers DO work. And even if it did not, you cannot offer any other education reform that fares better, and the status quo is not acceptable. for example
Well you kind of provided a source...
It was from 2008 and apparently written by these guys... "Dr. Matthew Ladner is Vice President of Research at the Goldwater Institute, www.GoldwaterInstitute.org. Dan Lips is a Senior Policy Analyst at the Heritage Foundation." Not sure if either knows anything about education.
And now 10 years later Florida's K-12 system is still near the bottom of the barrel. I mean MN is #7 and Florida is #40.
This is an interesting read from WAPO regarding the Florida system
I love that you say this...
People who make bad personal decisions about having and raising children or seeking out work, ought to bear that responsibility.
Unfortunately the only people I see paying for the choices these people made are their very unlucky kids and we tax payers... And you consistently resist holding the baby mama / daddy responsible.
You complain that the Goldwater institute's scholars are not a trusted source, and then cite WAPO? And they quote the Miami-Dade Schools Superintendent? Can you imagine a more biased defender of the status quo public schools, fighting AGAINST any effort to make the public schools better? And again you are insisting on sources. I claim to need no source for common sense and common knowledge. At some point, do we not need to acknowledge that our current system of public education is failing a large percentage of certain demographics? Or is 80% of black kids not reading at grade level just "bad luck" for them? Should they have chosen not to be born poor and black?
I am usually suspicious when liberals demand government "do something" in response to a crisis. I like to insist that government do the /RIGHT/ thing, and be certain there is a crisis. But you seem insistent that government do NOTHING in response to the obvious crisis-- the worst-in-the-nation education "gap."
onda Samuels, the president of Northside Achievement Zone
The Northside Achievement Zone, known as NAZ, is dedicated to closing the achievement gap and end generational poverty in North Minneapolis. "The gap is not about the kids, but it's about the adults in the system, [which] includes me, includes the teacher and includes the districts and schools and parents." Samuel says the gap doesn't just affect African Americans, but also affects Latinos, American Indians and Asians. "We do so well by our white students- middle class and upper class and we do so poorly by our low income communities of color and that's really what it is about," says Samuel. "There's not an expectation that kids born in this zip code, 55411, can actually succeed because they have so much against them and that's rubbish."
As I said...
I love that you say this...
People who make bad personal decisions about having and raising children or seeking out work, ought to bear that responsibility.
Unfortunately the only people I see paying for the choices these people made are their very unlucky kids and we tax payers... And you consistently resist holding the baby mama / daddy responsible.
Again, prove to me that "these people" [as if they were some sub-human species] HAD choices that they a) knew of, and b) seemed achievable for them.
Ferrazzi says there are several other things leaders can do.
Do not shame people when they screw up.
Be vulnerably honest.
Ask for advice.
Use levity.
Directly ask someone if he wants to change, and will commit to doing so.
Offer choice. People don't like to be told what to do.
4 Laws of Changing People's Behavior
I have no desire to shame them. I do have a desire to have them bear the natural consequences of their actions.
As you would say...
They chose unwisely to have poorly protected pre-marital sex.
They chose to keep the baby. (ie no morning after pill, no abortion, no adoption, etc)
Therefore they bear the responsibility of raising that child or those children well. Which means making sure they are socially, academically, physically, emotionally, behaviorally, etc ready for kindergarten at ~5 years old.
Now the reality is that many poor single parents are not fulfilling this most important of responsibilities, and you want some organization to bear the consequences of their failure... While you let them off the hook...
Now please remember that I am happy to support their efforts through:
- Parenting classes
- Early childhood education
- Food and medical programs for the kids
- Social service and Counseling programs
- Child care benefits
- Adult training classes
You remember... All those things you do not want to fund...
Amazing how you slander everybody involved in the current societal woes. You blame parents for not living up to YOUR moral standards, and child-rearing standards, and you blame me for not wanting to fund any old panacea that comes down the pike, because I do not embrace YOUR concept of what government must force on these "irresponsible parents."
And I will point out that, if you give them all the goods and services you seem to want them to have, that they bear NO natural consequences for their actions. Make up your mind.
We know that kids can learn better if our education system makes certain changes. Before we change the entire society and culture, how about we make those changes for the kids that are already here? Why do you continue to defend the status quo?
Actually, they are not my standards...
They are the CDC's expectation for the development of a normal child.
Please remember that I have a lot of ideas for holding Parents accountable without harming the children, you just disagree with them.
Then of course there is your view that poor stupid parent(s) with kids should be free to have more of them and be reliant on begging from charities to feed, house and provide healthcare to their kids. Which of course means that the innocent child(ren) pays for the irresponsibility of the adults.
We have young women who have very little income and no man at home having 2, 3 , 4 up to 15 children... And your answer is to cut welfare, Medicaid and give her a school voucher...
I am not sure where there rent, food, healthcare, etc is supposed to come from?
Maybe you envision the 4 of them on the streets begging for money?
Again... How do you want to hold irresponsible parent(s) accountable without harming the child(ren)?
So long as you continue to radically distort my viewpoints, I'm not seeing the point of explaining it to you. But one more time: I have absolutely no intention of =holding= /anybody/ accountable--natural consequences are enough-- EXCEPT for those public schools that work for me. For those victims of our various social pathologies, I believe they should be offered opportunities that they currently do not have-- education, work, self-sufficiency, "tips" for better living, respect and human dignity. All things you, or at least our current government-run "system," seem willing and able to deny them.
I do agree that it is a pointless discussion. You have a hammer in mind and therefore see only a nail.
Hammer? Would you rather employ a scalpel-- forced sterilizations, forced abortions, and maybe jail time for fornicators? Your solutions are force; mine are opportunity.
Please feel free to keep practicing self deception.
From my perspective, you and the other religious conservatives support:
- keeping young people ignorant regarding sex related personal health issues
- keeping birth control, morning after pills and first trimester abortions hard to get and expensive
- making parent(s) beg for help while the child(ren) suffer.
And to help these people, all you offer are vouchers to schools that may be better or worse.
Maybe the parent(s) can burn the voucher paper to stay warm in the winter...
Now that is classic. You presume to know what /I/ think and believe, based on your totally unfounded notions that all religious conservatives think exactly alike AND that I am one of them. Then you tell me that /I/ am deceiving myself. How could you possibly know? Just because I do not think exactly as you do?
I'll accept that I have no solution for all the ills of the world, but you are insisting that without that, we cannot begin to address one of the major ills, as we know how to do, unless all of the others are solved first, and by YOUR preferred approaches. Solving them another way is unacceptable to you, and that strikes me as single-minded.
We have been exchanging comments for almost 10 years. I am pretty sure I know what you have written. And I am making an assumption that what you write is what you believe.
So please correct me if the following is incorrect. Jerry is:
- Against schools delivering thorough and complete sex education.
- Prefers them stressing abstinence and leaving the details to parent(s)
- Against subsidizing birth control
- For politicians who support limiting availability of morning after pills and first term abortions
- Against government welfare programs
- For people being supported by a patchwork of charitable groups
Nuance, John, nuance.
-- I am against schools delivering "complete" sex education without values attached, difficult in a government setting. I certainly oppose teaching 6-year-olds that they have to "choose" whether they are a boy or a girl. The devil is in the details.
-- So, yes, I think that abstinence must be high on the lesson plan, and I still believe that telling hyper-hormonal teens to "don't have sex, but if you do, use a condom" gets only HALF heard-- the back half. And they don't do THAT correctly.
-- What kind of birth control do you want subsidized, who gets the subsidy, how much is the subsidy and what makes you think "irresponsible people" will use it even if it's free? At least you aren't making it mandatory, which is progress IMHO.
-- I favor politicians who are pro-life, though some carry it to an extreme I would not. Morning after pills are somewhat dangerous and should not be used as birth control except in extreme cases such as rape. And I think 1st trimester abortions are bad, and not to be entered into lightly (or subsidized), And I believe that states SHOULD regulate according to Roe v. Wade, without all the howling from pro-abortion groups.
-- I am all for welfare programs that WORK, which means I oppose the current system more or less in its entirety. I envision a long transition, but ending in a system largely based in charity, serving only the remaining tiny fraction of the current "poor."
-- that "patchwork" at least has the advantage of being local and face-to-face, compared with a big-government system with some 86 overlapping, conflicting and highly-ineffective programs. All I ask is that this "problem" be solved with common sense.
-- And I will continue to insist that we should solve the problem of poor education in poor communities, before we tackle poverty itself. We don't have to turn the Titanic, so long as we can get everybody in the lifeboats.
I wonder if that "nuance" is where self deception creeps in?
I mean to truly help young people avoid unintended pregnancies:
- they need thorough and complete health training
- easy / free access to effective fool proof birth control
- a way to fix the problem early and cheaply if they screw up
Which of course is not what you want to supply them... Then if they fail your "abstinence hurdle" and choose to keep their child, then you want make them beg for food, housing, healthcare, etc from charities who choose who they want to help and how. All the while the child(ren) survive with an erratic funding stream.
It is interesting how we see the same issue differently.
Differently is right. You demand "those people" be "responsible," and then want to force-feed them all the tools they need to be irresponsible. If you want to "truly help young people avoid unintended pregnancies" you will teach them the responsible thing, which is to avoid sex and its attendant risks of pregnancy, disease and psychological harm. NONE of these pregnancies, I daresay, are "intended," but the sex IS.
Giving them birth control makes it possible for them to believe they can have sex without the other consequences, thus making it more likely, and giving it to them for free practically encourages irresponsible behavior. Married adults, maybe, but not "experimenting" teens.
I presume you mean abortion as the "quick and cheap fix"? Quick certainly eases the moral dilemma, but it isn't possible, and calling it cheap simply tells us what we think of human life-- that it is cheap.
You think people "beg" from charities? You don't know much about charities, and people these days do not beg; not when Big Daddy government is handing out fistfuls of cash to all comers, like a wide-open candy store. The big problem, from your view, apparently, is that charities set expectations for people to help themselves along the way, so they don't need the charity forever. You know, asking them to be responsible.
So it appears my perceptions are correct...
Jerry is:
- Against schools delivering thorough and complete sex education.
- Prefers them stressing abstinence and leaving the details to parent(s)
- Against subsidizing birth control
- For politicians who support limiting availability of morning after pills and first term abortions
- Against government welfare programs
- For people being supported by a patchwork of charitable groups
Why do resist owning these pretty clear cut positions?
Because they are NOT clear cut. They depend greatly on your definitions, which I am absolutely certain do not much mine.
For example, I can be "for politicians...." for a myriad of other reasons than their support for morning after pills.
And, I may point out, if I accept these positions as you have described them, and accept your definitions of them, we have nothing to talk about.
I am sure we will find something...
Post a Comment