From Laurie... Public school buildings are falling apart, and students are suffering for it
"Maybe you should stop complaining about lazy, underachieving students and support federal funding for adequate schools. as I mentioned yesterday this would be a better use for the money than Trump's wall."
The irony of course is that I don't think I have ever complained about "lazy, underachieving students"... Mostly I complain about:
- irresponsible, neglectful, and/or immature Baby Mamas and Papas, and that our society is not holding them accountable for being good Parents.
- School Unions putting the Teacher / Administration's wants ahead of the needs of the unlucky kids. (ie tenure, steps, lanes, lowest paid Teachers with most challenged students, etc)
Now back to Laurie's link, please note that this is a State level issue. And that Maryland has been a pretty Blue State. And it is a very wealthy state.
So why again are many of the school buildings not up to the Winter challenge? And why is Baltimore such a poor messed up city? And most importantly why should the Feds be involved? Other than maybe to tell the State to get it's act together...
66 comments:
From Laurie
The additional $297 million requested for increased border security would be better spent ensuring that all of our public schools are heated in the winter. It is hard to write a paper while wearing mittens.
WAPO Interesting Link
It is hard to believe that 6.9% of students have illegal Parents...
It always baffles me that we can say "6.9% have illegal parents" and then NOT immediately go out and deport these folks. We must know who they are to say that, so....?
But how about a solution that should make everybody happy? Let's take these unlucky parents and put them to work fixing up these schools. Teach them a trade, let them work for their welfare check, and have government (state or local) put up just the materials? A school SHOULD last 100 years with proper maintenance.
And Laurie, if we had the Wall, we wouldn't have so many students struggling in our schools-- 6.9% fewer, apparently.
Jerry I think you missed the point.
The vast majority of their kids are citizens and it is the children who receive financial assistance. Not the parents...
And most of these parents from what I understand are good workers who have jobs...
Though I do agree that a poorly enforced / secured Southern Border did allow this disaster to grow over the decades.
I guess my point is where are all the rich caring Liberals in Maryland??? How can the schools have a funding problem?
There is no amount of money that it cannot be mismanaged to the point of failure. I do not know if this particular case is caused by "corruption" as the Governor suggests, or by simple incompetence, but the results are pretty much the same either way. Seems like what is missing is good old-fashioned competition.
"...it is the children who receive financial assistance." If that were so, they would have heating systems that worked. Remember how the Democrats fought GOP efforts to require at least 75% of school spending to go to the classroom? I wonder what the number is in Maryland?
"Let's take these unlucky parents and put them to work fixing up these schools. Teach them a trade, let them work for their welfare check..."
It's fun to watch people jump to conclusions, especially when smash their head against Reality. One would think it would eventually knock loose some of those prejudices. Apparently not.
Moose
Not knowing much about it I am guessing several factors have aligned:
- An extreme weather event
- Pressure by people in the city to "keep old neighborhood schools" open even as enrollment dropped.
- Lower enrollment equals less money for maintenance.
- Older building requires more maintenance / money.
- Robbinsdale had this problem and oh how people screamed when it was decided to bull doze, repurpose or sell those schools.
- Finally there is the bureaucratic waste that is rampant in public schools... :-)
Moose, the reality is that these schools got too cold and it could have/should have been prevented. I am prejudiced in saying that many of these schools are also producing substandard educations, especially for the amount of money spent, and that they are located in inner cities among lots of "unlucky kids." Can you prove me wrong?
"The battle is not always to the strong, nor the race to the swift, but that's the way to bet." Is that prejudice?
Jerry, I tried to read this comment again and it doesn't get any better...
"It always baffles me that we can say "6.9% have illegal parents" and then NOT immediately go out and deport these folks. We must know who they are to say that, so....?
But how about a solution that should make everybody happy? Let's take these unlucky parents and put them to work fixing up these schools. Teach them a trade, let them work for their welfare check, and have government (state or local) put up just the materials? A school SHOULD last 100 years with proper maintenance."
Ah, I see the problem. Illegal immigrants are not Americans so don't have the right to send their kids to our public schools at all. "Unlucky parents" are entirely different, they are Americans that we have not provided the opportunity for the dignity of work.
How do you feel about the two ideas, divorced from one another?
jerry-
Let me try this one more time, since you seem to be oblivious.
"Let's take these unlucky parents and put them to work fixing up these schools. Teach them a trade, let them work for their welfare check..."
Read it again.
"Let's take these unlucky parents and put them to work fixing up these schools. Teach them a trade, let them work for their welfare check..."
You took quite the leap, jumping to the conclusion that these "illegal parents" aren't already working -- that is, "making America great again" -- and are collecting welfare.
You must be so concussed from hitting your head against the hard rock of Reality that you don't even notice how careless you are with your 'logic'.
Reality:
1) These people are already working.
2) They don't qualify for welfare.
Moose
Moose,
I think Jerry confused a couple of unrelated topics... My beliefs regarding "Unlucky kids". Those with care givers like the following.
"Mostly I complain about irresponsible, neglectful, and/or immature Baby Mamas and Papas, and that our society is not holding them accountable for being good Parents."
And the illegal immigrant care givers who may be like the above, or maybe excellent responsible Parents.
I really am not sure what he considers an "Unlucky Parent" since anyone blessed with a baby is pretty lucky !!! The question is can they and will they meet the obligations triggered by choosing to bring a baby in to our society.
I am defining unlucky parents as the parents of your "unlucky kids." Forget for the moment the fact that we are doing stupid things with illegal immigration. A reality in which we solve two problems with the same solution is better than solving just one, or neither. So, giving work to unlucky parents and getting the schools fixed at the same time is the better way. And do you really want to argue against that?
from my link:
"We’ve known about the school infrastructure crisis for a long time. More than two decades ago, the U.S. Government Accountability Office reported that as many as 28 million students attended schools with significant structural problems, including 15,000 schools with unsafe indoor air quality. By 2013, the American Society of Civil Engineers gave public schools a “D+” grade on its national report card. One 2016 report estimated it would cost roughly $145 billion annually to maintain and modernize school buildings so all students could learn in safe environments."
clearly over all the states are failing to provide quality or even adequate education to too many students (as we know Mn is one of the best states in providing quality schools - though we could do better) Anyway, the federal govt needs to step in and help raise the quality. They can start with providing funds for improving facilities. The way I see it too many states compete to have low(est) taxes and taxing and spending at the federal level to improve school quality is a good solution. It would be a complex bill to make it as "fair" as possible and as usual some states may pay more and some states may benefit more with this federal taxing and spending on schools. I am okay with that. If we are going to compete in a global economy we need better schools.
I am fine having welfare recipients work for their benefits.
I am fine fixing the schools.
I don't think tying:
- welfare
- mamas/papas of unlucky kids
- illegal alien parents
together works too well...
Remember the criteria to be considered a mama / papa of unlucky kids...
irresponsible, neglectful, and/or immature
For obvious reasons there are more "mama / papa of unlucky kids" in the welfare economic class. (ie why are poor people poor)
However there are likely a lot of great Parents in that group also...
Laurie,
At least you are confirming my belief that Democrats want to drive up the Federal budget to do things that States, Districts and Parents are responsible for.
Hopefully you support the GOP limiting the SALT deduction. :-)
The reality is that parents can move if they deem it unacceptable. And they can vote for different politicians...
maybe I am just tired but the following looks like Trump style word salad to me:
"I don't think tying:
- welfare
- mamas/papas of unlucky kids
- illegal alien parents
together works too well...
Remember the criteria to be considered a mama / papa of unlucky kids...
irresponsible, neglectful, and/or immature
For obvious reasons there are more "mama / papa of unlucky kids" in the welfare economic class. (ie why are poor people poor)
However there are likely a lot of great Parents in that group also... "
What does it have to do with improving the quality of schools?
I am counting on the younger generation to support me in my retirement and perhaps one day care for me in my nursing home - they need to be well educated. We as a country are currently failing way too many students. The states and cities are not getting it (quality schools) done- We need good schools throughout the whole country - which is why fed govt should do more.
I agree that we are failing the kids...
The irony of course is that I don't think I have ever complained about "lazy, underachieving students"...
Mostly I complain about:
• Irresponsible, neglectful, and/or immature Baby Mamas and Papas, and that our society is not holding them accountable for being good Parents. (65% of problem)
• School Unions putting the Teacher / Administration's wants ahead of the needs of the unlucky kids. (ie tenure, steps, lanes, lowest paid Teachers with most challenged students, etc) (35% of problem)
I disagree that this needs to be resolved at the Federal level.
They did quite enough damage with the war on poverty, war on drugs, enabling public unions to have so much power, etc...
And again... If we as a country are going to task the feds with collecting and dispersing the funds... Then lets make sure the wealthy folks in Blue States are paying their share of the Federal tax burden.
We're getting ahead of ourselves, here. We're pushing our prejudices on the problem and on the solution, rather than realistically defining the problem and creating the solution from that. That is, find those people on welfare who do NOT have jobs, because they are most likely to be parents of unlucky kids. Give them jobs fixing the schools (mind you, kids do not learn well in a peeling-paint school, but without good teachers and high expectations, it is worse), and their higher income and increased human dignity makes them better parents. Simple, logical, local and cost-effective.
"...their higher income and increased human dignity"
One need only look to the White House to realize those things don't go hand in hand.
Moose
Bull-twaddle. How many times have you heard that somebody "refuses to take welfare" because they want to preserve their dignity? What dignity is there in being a freeloader or, for that matter, in giving away somebody else's money and claiming virtue for yourself?
And trying to somehow link basic human nature and a prejudice against poor people with the White House is just more hyper-partisan politicking. Not everything is caused by Trump, nor by climate change.
Nice try. I didn't blame Trump for anything. I've merely pointed out that Trump is wealthy...and one of the least dignified humans ever foisted on the American people. You should be more careful about the things you link together, such as money and dignity.
Moose
John links together poverty and poor parenting all the time, not in specifics but in general. So to single out Trump as a poor parent because of his wealth is, well, this is polite company. By all accounts he is a very good parent. If you want to say that rich people are better parents than poor people, you can, but then you disprove your own argument. Simple fact of life and human nature: Human beings HAVE an inherent human dignity. Forcing them on welfare, and to send their kids to failing schools, deprives them of that. WHY would you support such things?
Who I want to know has ever been... "forced on welfare"?
Did you force them? How exactly did you do this?
People generally are forced by circumstance to accept welfare, though admittedly too many these days consider it an entitlement, but the "system" conspires to KEEP them on welfare by not offering sufficient alternatives. Here's a simple example. The 1996 welfare reform act required recipients to train for or find work within a time limit on benefits, before Obama gutted the program. During that time, 60% of welfare recipients got off the program.
And we keep getting sidetracked. What is wrong with giving welfare recipients jobs fixing the schools? Is the objection to having the schools fixed? Or is the objection to welfare people getting jobs?
So by offering someone free money...
They are "forced on welfare"?
Based on these discussions a WPA program would be acceptable to many.
I don't know about WPA. I know my Dad was always grateful for his time in the CCC camp. So, yes, government work is preferable to no work at all, and if the big need is fixing up school buildings, that is certainly worthwhile employment.
About "forced on welfare"... I once looked into applying for food stamps, and decided I could qualify IF: 1) I sold my home and bought a bigger one that I couldn't afford, 2) sold my paid-for car and bought a bigger one, on credit, and 3) spent the bulk of my savings on an elaborate dream vacation. Was I forced to take this "free" money and abandon much of my personal responsibility? No. Under different circumstances, perhaps not entirely of my own making and offering a choice among "free money," taking any job I could find or starvation, it wouldn't take much force at all. But the requirements for staying on welfare, that discourages marriage and work, could be considered force. And are you going to say that welfare is a choice? If so, is it a good choice or a bad choice? Considering what "bad mothers" welfare moms are...
The number of "baby mamas" is truly correlated with dependence on "welfare", however it certainly is not a causal relationship as I have said many times before.
Being a "Bad Mother" comes down to these kind of issues.
• Irresponsible, neglectful, and/or immature Baby Mamas and Papas, and that our society is not holding them accountable for being good Parents. (65% of problem)
And often it is not that they are "Bad / Evil", it may be that they are immature, uneducated, addicted, lack self discipline, have untreated special needs, model destructive parenting that they experienced, etc.
None of these are good reasons to let her children bear the burden for her personal issues.
"it certainly is not a causal relationship as I have said many times before." And yet, if welfare was not readily available, would there not be a disincentive for both BMs and BDs to quit making BBs? Wouldn't the best way to "hold them accountable" be to do so BEFORE the fact, by not offering them welfare, and by holding the father financially responsible? I don't care if they can't pay, the knowledge that they won't PROFIT from their fun should be majorly discouraging.
OK, we ought to save the kids. Are they coming to live with you? Or do you think we ought to help them stay and improve within their own family, with incentives and assistance to do so? Like, say, offering them jobs (and training) to fix up the schools?
I am pretty sure that after the 1996 welfare reform, no one is profiting from having more kids. But of course irresponsible adults and sex often does result in babies...
OK, so if you aren't going to forcibly sterilize the undesirables, and you won't hold BM and BD financially responsible by denying more welfare for more kids and demanding child support from BD, and women don't bother to get your free contraception, what are you going to do with the millions of unlucky kids we will have, or have already had?
After the reform, more than half found jobs. Why don't we start with re-instituting that, and making it better? Working people have less time for sex, you know.
Trump apparently reversed Obamas waivers already. So it seems all the 1996 work requirements are already back.
As Sean has noted many times, women do not get more welfare for having more kids. Though society does try to ensure the child has healthcare, food and a place to live.
What is your recommendation for holding BM & BD accountable without harming the babies?
What if BD is in prison?
And BM is a low skill low education employee who can not even afford childcare on her minimum wage income?
Do you really think that these young poorly educated women are still trying to get pregnant multiple times after the 1996 welfare reform?
Do you think these young poorly educated women believe they WILL get pregnant, or suffer any other consequences, natural or welfare-wise? The 96 law, even effectively enforced, offered a 5 year limit on benefits. If she cannot plan 9 months ahead, (or an hour ahead, long enough to find a condom), what makes you think she worries about 5 years out? Norplant only solves half the problem.
Somehow we have to break the cycle, and work requirements are just the start. We have to have extensive social services that teach self-sufficiency and values, starting in the schools, where they can start to access opportunity and make good choices.
And I don't care if BD is a bum or in jail, I want him held financially responsible, and to KNOW for certain, long before the fact, that he will be. And BM should know as well that this bum is going to be in her life for the next 18 years and not the next 18 minutes. And if the school has instilled in her some self-esteem (it cannot be taught, BTW), it is the most effective contraception method there is. Remember, "Certain drugs of the sulfa family have been found 100% effective against venereal disease and unwanted pregnancy. They are sulfa-esteem, sulfa-respect, and sulfa-denial."
This classic saying seems relevant...
"One can not get blood out of a turnip..."
But one can refuse to water it. Or are you saying that some of our fellow Americans and fellow human beings are plants? The world really doesn't work the way you or I may want. Human nature is what it is, and if you tell a fellow that sex is going to tie up his income, which he may or may not have, for the next 18 years, will he not alter his behavior accordingly? And if he doesn't, doesn't he "learn" something real quick? If you give a young girl an education and encourage her dreams of some sort of career and family, is she more likely to avoid sexual compromises?
I am okay using plants or bunnies as a point of comparison, they also respond to carrots (ie water, food, sun, etc) and sticks.
I am fine with educating and encouraging...
And threatening...
And helping them avoid the problem with very cheap Long Acting Reversible Contraceptives and high quality complete sex ed.
So, do you give a girl a fish and contraceptives and she doesn't get pregnant for a couple years, just has lots of sex. Teach a girl how to fish and a good reason to restrict irresponsible sex, and she doesn't get pregnant OR a venereal disease OR become a burden to society OR bring poor kids into the world.
Helping them with BC is fine, but you have to fix the underlying irresponsibility (your word) first. It needs to be their responsibility and their choice, and just having it there "free" doesn't create that. After all, look how much these irresponsible parents value the "free" public education we give them? And we FORCE them to take that.
Actually she may not get pregnant for 5 to 12 years, these are LONG ACTING Reversible Contraception options.
"A study in 2012, with the largest cohort of IUD and implant users to date, found that the risk of contraceptive failure for those using oral contraceptive pills, the birth control patch, or the vaginal ring was 17 to 20 times higher than the risk for those using long-acting reversible contraception.[7] For those under 21, who typically have lower adherence to drug regimens, the risk is twice as high as the risk among older participants"
Very effective and one does not think about it daily, use it correctly or stop the action when in the fits of passion.
The nice thing about America is that we all have a choice of where to live...
That is unless you have become a Liberal recently and now belief that poor people are "trapped in poverty"... And not responsible for their own choices, efforts, beliefs, etc...
Tell it to the homeless. Or those in Section 8 housing. I don't have to be a liberal to believe poor people are trapped in poverty. And a liberal believes those folks are happy with their welfare check.
Poverty is never a choice. It may be the result of other choices, or it may be the result of a lack of choices available to any one person. We cannot all choose, for example, to be an astronaut or Olympic diver (e.g. being afraid of heights AND water).
Did these folks CHOOSE freezing schools to send their kids to?
Well, I think they often chose:
- to not learn in school and/or outside of school
- to have poorly protected sex
- count on the wrong guy / gal
- take up smoking, drugs, alcohol, gambling, etc
- not take hard jobs
People do not need to be an astronaut to live in a nice house / community. They need to delay having babies until they are educated and working. Then they need to get and stay married.
There are some things that are not in their control: lead exposure, mental illness, other special needs, etc.
You dodged the question. Of the many right choices that these poor folks may or may not have made in life, why should they be denied the one choice that might help their children not to follow in their footsteps? That could easily be done – far more easily than to repair all of the social pathologies that went into or arise out of those poor choices. And I would include in those choices NOT getting a good education in your nearby public school. And that is assuming it was a choice available to them, which I do not think is always the case.
Are you recommending that we give them a choice to attend Early Childhood Family Education classes, and ensure their children can spend a lot of time in Pre-school?
Then I agree with you... These BM's and BD's NEED to learn and change for the good of their child(ren). The challenge of course is that those who most need the help will be the most resistant to it.
Ah, but here is the fly in the ointment. What makes you think that ECFE or preschool, run by the same public schools that are failure factories already, would make any difference at all?
Now if you want to add the "family" part of that education to our normal welfare services, I think that would be a good idea, and I would start no later than Birth of the first child on that. as for preschool, if you want to give out (subsidies) vouchers available to people who CHOOSE a preschool for their child, that's fine, too. The difference is that I would pay those to the school, to encourage them to start up, and to allow parents the choice to decide their child's readiness. Unlike K-12 vouchers which go to the parents, many of whom (certainly, initially) will choose the existing public schools.
As usual, your primary root cause error is the basis of your poor proposal.
"public schools that are failure factories already"
Kids with smart responsible Parents do fine in our Public schools.
So though there is room for improvement they certainly are not "failure factories".
Suppose I operated a factory and 50% of the units produced either failed final inspection or fell apart while still on the line? Would I be operating a failure factory or a successful enterprise? The fact that my competitor managed to produce 97% good product, or the fact that I chose to use low-cost, inferior materials is my responsibility, and since I am charging a premium for my product I should be doing far better.
You criticize my proposal, and yet I have not heard you suggest anything "doable," or as reasonably effective, especially in the short term. Suppose, by some miracle of modern social engineering, you stopped the birth of children to poor unmarried women. What does that do for all of the children already in our failing public schools?
I have yet to be presented with that alternative who "managed to produce 97% good product" with the same mix of students / families.
Laurie's charter is pretty typical, the kids simply don't do any better there than in the traditional publics.
That is unless you are willing to share the name of that magical school who is making lemonade from the same lemons that the Mpls schools receive.
It all comes back to Parents and Community...
And once again, so long as you allow the public schools to use either that excuse-- the "poor black kids can't learn" excuse, or the "we need more money" excuse (which ought to offset the former) they will NEVER have an incentive to improve. Check your suburban schools. Few Dropouts, 85-90% go on for more education, into military service, or employment. There are schools which do better with the same demographic. The difference seems to be high expectations and a strong effort to help the kids succeed. If all the public schools did was replicate some of these successful programs, it would be a major improvement, but you seem willing to agree with the publics that they cannot improve but need more money anyway.
Imagine what Laurie's school could do if they got the same pp funding as the other public schools, or even more based on the state aid formula?
It may be an issue if Laurie's school was then required to take all of the severe special needs kids and cover the expenses.
A key portion of your voucher argument has always been that money does not matter. The competitive schools will work miracles given the chance. I am still waiting for those miracles.
And you WILL wait until true competition is introduced into the system.
And I think Laurie would argue that her school already serves a severely "disadvantaged" population of students and that, according to the same state aid formula that the nearby public schools use, Her school should be getting far MORE money to "compensate" (as the formulate supposedly does) rather than FAR less.
And already the costs of the few severe special-needs kids Are (somewhat) impacting the ability of "the system" to deliver a better education for the vast majority. we should not be penalizing 98% of the kids In order to let us continue to serve the other 2%.
As far as I understand...
Charters get the same State funds as normal publics (ie formula driven), what they are missing are the local levies. However they also have fewer rules, fewer severe special needs kids and fewer truly unlucky kids.
I mean the Parent(s) would have to actually care about their kids education or social experience to enroll in a charter. Kind of why Magnets have a higher distribution of lucky kids.
As for spending excessive amounts on the 2%, get over it. That was court decided decades ago. It is reality.
It is not a visible or useful reality. Schools do not but should put a cost on every "IEP." And just because the court orders it does not mean the government has every funded it according to the law, meaning we take from the 98% of kids to get it.
Yes, parents who care can choose a school. So what happens if you give the parents the money and tell them they MUST choose a school?
So why should charters make do with less? Aren't they part of the local school system? All so easily solved if we just hand parents the voucher.
I disagree, but good luck.
Where is the disagreement? You don't believe parents would choose a school given the means AND requirement to do so? You don't think that competitive schools should compete on the same funding basis as the current "failing" (my word, no need to quibble) public schools? Or you don't think that SE funding should have a "cost effectiveness" attached to it? Or all of the above?
Seems like grounds hog day...
Of course. Until you do something to break the cycle of poor kids being deprived of the opportunity to get an education-- the great leveler-- that would let them escape poverty, you are going to continue to get more "failed" adults. And more failing children.
Really, do you have ANY suggestion for breaking the cycle, quickly and effectively, that are within the ability of our government to effect? I believe vouchers would do that, as a simple matter of human nature and because school funding is directly government-controlled.
Hold BMs and BDs accountable for being responsible Parents....
DETAILS, please. Explain exactly what power government holds over individual sexual decisions without "interfering in the bedroom," and how human nature will be suddenly altered by government fiat. You are asking people to make choices that: a) they may not know they have, b) they know of alternative choices, c) those alternatives are actually available, and d) those other choices appear "better" to them.
You are against holding BMs and BDs accountable in anyway...
Well other than trying to make BD's pay financial support... And protecting kids from physical abuse.
We have discussed ideas before, however you insist that BM and BDs get to raise their kids as they see choose. As long as this is the choice our society makes, unlucky kids will be the result.
We still have the same problem, that you want to hold BDs and BMs responsible and "I don't think that word means what you think it means." You do not say HOW such a miracle occurs, while I have at least suggested that BD's be held financially accountable for child support. I would go further and require mandatory job training, placement, and child-rearing classes as a condition of receiving welfare. Add drug screening if you want. Oh, and try to get that past the "Social Justice Warriors."
But if you want to blame "society" for the bad choices, you have to suggest how the society has any authority. What I have suggested is essentially government "penalties" for bad choices, not society's means of prevention.
This seems relevant.
And remember that I support drug screening, "mandatory job training, placement, and child-rearing classes as a condition of receiving welfare". And I would add in do they attend Teacher conferences, is their child clean and fed, etc...
All the things you normally resist.
And then there is my most extreme position. If you are a woman on welfare with 2 kids, and you get pregnant again that child must be given up for adoption or be aborted.
Post a Comment