This piece discusses how successful folks work hard to protect their children and property values from the unsuccessful folk. Which unfortunately contributes to unsuccessful folks staying unsuccessful...
Of course there is a good reason that districts do this. Successful people are free to take their children and the money tied to them to less demographically challenged schools whenever they choose. Our district, Robbinsdale 281 has been fighting this as long as I have been here. That is why we have 3 magnet schools and the people from the SW side go to Armstrong High School and the folks from the NE side go to Cooper High School. And even with these accommodations we still lose hundreds of successful families and their support to Wayzata, Orono, Minnetonka, Privates, etc
As I have asked before, what is the Parent to do:
Fight for their community and keep their children in a more demographical challenged / diverse school. Hoping that this benefits them in someway.
Ensure their child is able to attend the least demographically challenged / very homogenous school. Assuming that academics are more important than diversity.
Note: When I talk diversity, I am NOT TALKING RACE... I am talking economics, family structure, academic focus / history, parental engagement in child's learning, etc. As I have noted many times before, my girls have friends from all races. However we have taught them to steer clear of kids who are making poor choices. (ie gangs, drugs, drinking, smoking, bullying, skipping homework, etc)
VOX School Boundary Gerrymandering
And here is how RDale and Mpls look to their tool. As always. click the image to make it bigger...
Of course there is a good reason that districts do this. Successful people are free to take their children and the money tied to them to less demographically challenged schools whenever they choose. Our district, Robbinsdale 281 has been fighting this as long as I have been here. That is why we have 3 magnet schools and the people from the SW side go to Armstrong High School and the folks from the NE side go to Cooper High School. And even with these accommodations we still lose hundreds of successful families and their support to Wayzata, Orono, Minnetonka, Privates, etc
As I have asked before, what is the Parent to do:
Fight for their community and keep their children in a more demographical challenged / diverse school. Hoping that this benefits them in someway.
Ensure their child is able to attend the least demographically challenged / very homogenous school. Assuming that academics are more important than diversity.
Note: When I talk diversity, I am NOT TALKING RACE... I am talking economics, family structure, academic focus / history, parental engagement in child's learning, etc. As I have noted many times before, my girls have friends from all races. However we have taught them to steer clear of kids who are making poor choices. (ie gangs, drugs, drinking, smoking, bullying, skipping homework, etc)
VOX School Boundary Gerrymandering
And here is how RDale and Mpls look to their tool. As always. click the image to make it bigger...
74 comments:
I have a tough time making any sense of your pictures, or of the article. Yes, it makes sense for kids to attend the nearest school. What sense does it make to insist that black kids cannot learn unless white kids are in the same class? What is the value of desegregation alone, when the goal should be to get every kid a good education?
Same Old Same Old...
You and the VOX folks want to focus on diversity and challenging as described by race... Where as I see the cause of school challenges differently as you know...
• 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)
The challenge as always is to get a large enough proportion of Lucky Kids and Families in each school so that it can function well. (ie good role models, in class stabilizers, volunteers, donations, demand results, etc)
As the proportion of unlucky Kids increase above some threshold, the challenge increases greatly.
OK, fine, ride your hobby horse and let the schools escape their "35%" of the problem while we wait for some magical fix to our government-induced and supported social pathologies. I think we should do something that we CAN do something about, and quickly, while we work towards the (to some extent I agree) much broader root of the education failures.
But let me give you a specific example, and you see if it makes sense. Tallulah, Louisiana, is a small town with a river running down through the middle of it. Historically, two different towns started up on either side of the river, like Mpls/StP. One town was historically, predominantly black (on the South side) and the other historically, predominantly white. There were two high schools, one South and one North. The federal courts decreed that, since the South school was "poorer" (because they didn't have the tax base) it was "segregation" and must be ended, SO...
-- Every morning a bus would pick up half the kids from North town and bus them across the river to South high school, and then take half the kids from South town across the river to North high school. As one might expect, neither group improved their education or deportment, and half the kids were still either "avoiding the judgment" or "continuing to be discriminated against." SO, the courts ruled again.
--Now every morning we do the same dance as before, where half the students switch schools AWAY from the closest, and then at noon the buses come move the OTHER half of students to the school furthest away, and at night EVERYBODY takes the long ride home across to the other side town.
What do you expect was the result? Much higher operating costs just to bus kids around. Major disruptions of the school day thanks to time spent traveling and being tossed into different schools, classrooms and teachers, and a general decline in academic achievement across all students.
Again, what is the purpose to desegregation. Is it to increase costs and decrease quality? Because that doesn't make sense.
Maybe I need to change my weightings based on that story... I mean it seems that the school has less effect than I thought. Maybe...
• Irresponsible, neglectful, and/or immature Baby Mamas and Papas, and that our society is not holding them accountable for being good Parents. (95% 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) (5% of problem)
The unfortunate reality as that a very large number of kids grow up very similar to their Parents in many ways...
Which makes sense since they are the role model who impacts them closely from birth.
And unfortunately if they are surrounded by a similar community...
Maybe that's why we say that an apple does not fall from the tree.
And here is the bad news for our unlucky kids and our society...
"However, what happens during and after having sex is very different depending on how much money a woman makes, though.
Birth rates, vary widely based on income. Single women between 15 and 44 from the lowest income bracket (>100% of the federal poverty line, $11,770) in the US are five times more likely to have a child than women in the highest 20% of incomes (>400% of the poverty line).
A new Brookings paper takes a look at why that is.
The paper, by Richard Reeves and Joanna Venator, finds that both contraceptive use and abortion rates factor into the difference in the birth rate. Higher income women are more likely to use contraception, the contraception they use is more likely to be effective, and they are more likely to get an abortion than lower income women. "
Remember what Poor Women Really Want and you are loathe to help them with...
And it is not welfare...
I should point out that a high proportion of the residents of South Talullah are married two-parent families and working. How do those numbers work now? And what you are doing is simply blaming the victim. See:
why poor people stay poor
Nice link... Are you trying to prove my point... Parent(s) and Environment are the driving causes...
"A study this year in the journal Nature Neuroscience found that poor children, on average, actually have smaller brains than affluent ones. New York University sociologist Patrick Sharkey concludes that "the effect of being raised in a family that lives in a poor neighborhood over two consecutive generations is roughly equivalent to missing two to four years of schooling."
Kids raised in these places suffer other problems besides material deprivation. Poor parents are less likely to read to and talk with their children. Violence is far more common than in other places, and violence has invisible but severe consequences -- not just on direct victims but on other residents.
Children who feel unsafe at school, who are disproportionately black, do measurably worse academically. Those who witness shootings or suffer violent attacks may develop post-traumatic stress disorder.
Chronic violence carries hazards for the mind, as well as the body. "Simply put," writes Princeton sociologist Douglas Massey, "people who are exposed to high levels of stress over a prolonged period of time are at risk of having their brains rewired in a way that leaves them with fewer cognitive resources to work."
Having fewer cognitive resources makes it harder to do those three things Santorum recommended. Getting and keeping a job is harder -- and the job you get will pay less than it might otherwise. Completing high school is harder. Exercising self-discipline and using contraception are harder.
It may be said in response that many whites and immigrants managed to overcome humble beginnings. That's true. But most of them didn't have to grow up in places where poverty, environmental contamination and gunplay were as pervasive as they are in many urban black areas.
Some kids can triumph over all these. But the chronic onslaught of adversity ensures that many, if not most, will be tripped up.
When these young people fail, a lot of Americans will blame them for not doing simple, obvious things to improve their lives. In reality, much of their fate is beyond their control.
"Much of their fate is beyond their control" refers to the kids. It also refers to the parents, begging the question of "whose control IS it?" Is poverty harder to overcome if it is subsidized than if recipients are helped and encouraged to work? Is unwed parenthood discouraged if additional kids earn more benefits and fathers escape consequence-free for having a good time? Is violence controlled better when police are allowed to target high-crime areas?
"Parents and environment" are the variables, but not necessarily the independent variables in the equation. What you are suggesting is that all we have to do is to export these concentrations of poverty and scatter them among the good white folks, and all will be well. I can tell you from direct observation that is not correct.
I will give credit to your cite for some very imaginative and wishful thinking, but I seriously doubt that any set of school district lines that accomplished desegregation would be anywhere close to "nearest school." It's why so many districts are going to "magnets" to increase their "diversity," and its almost equally silly. Why not just make EVERY school a magnet, with good teachers and strong academics, for the kids in the local neighborhood, regardless of color or income?
Well once they are adults, I would assume you agree that they are responsible for the choices they make. Unfortunately quite a few are making poor choices.
- more kids than they can afford
- single parenthood
- not relocating to a better city / state
- not get their GED or continuing their education
- cigarettes, alcohol, gambling, drugs
And again with your obsession with race. You are sounding like a Liberal.
I wrote about turning the majority of RDale schools into magnets once. That way all the unlucky kids would be stuck in the neighborhood schools. And the good Parents would take the effort to get their kids into the Magnets and do what was necessary to keep them there.
G2A RAS 2 Local 7 Magnet Proposal
RDale is kind of like that already. I think we have 4 magnets and the far west elementary (ie ZLE) So folks like me were able to avoid the most challenging students until Middle school.
As for "going to "magnets" to increase their "diversity," ...
Now that is just silly RDale has a hard time getting unlucky kids to attend the Magnets... I mean the Mama / Papa has to actually be aware enough and take the effort to apply on time.
That's why the Lucky Kids take the slots.
Here is a link that compares the RDale Stem School to the District.
Here is a link that compares the STEM to Northport, the most challenging demographics...
if I was on a school board or in a policy making position I would draw boundaries that might lesson the level of segregation to certain extent. Magnet schools seem like a sensible partial solution to me. I think some level of govt (local, state , or federal should be giving more money to schools with a higher percentage of at risk students.
My community has 3 elementary schools, with one less diverse than the other two. My kids did not go to that school but did attend a gifted magnet within a diverse school for most of their elementary school years. Based on what I hear about local schools I could see myself considering a private school option if my kids were in an out of control class.
Laurie what district? I am interested in what their report cards show.
As for "I would draw boundaries that might lesson the level of segregation"... That is easy to say until the good families threaten to leave and take their kids / dollars with them.
And if my old guess is correct, it takes less money to teach kids like my daughters than their funding. Therefore the extra money is used to support challenging and special ed kids. I mean the cross subsidy money has to come from somewhere.
As for money, both the Feds and State give more money to schools with more at risk children. It is in Title 1 and the formula.
And please remember that "more money" in K - 12 will not solve this...
• Irresponsible, neglectful, and/or immature Baby Mamas and Papas, and that our society is not holding them accountable for being good Parents. (70% 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) (30% of problem)
The fix really needs to occur by slowing the number of children born to irresponsible, unprepared,incapable, neglectful, etc mamas and papas...
Did you read the links Jerry and I provided? :-)
After thinking about the articles, I probably will need to add something about environment. (ie lead, violence, etc)
• 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)
• Home environment (ie lead, other air pollution, violence, etc) (10% 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) (25% of problem)
OK, let us summarize:
1) eugenics and forced sterilization
2) massive government intrusion into personal behavior,
3) requiring schools to be accountable for the money spent.
Now which of those do you find least objectionable and most cost-effective?
For example, should we pour lots of money into desegregating schools? To what purpose?
"As for 'I would draw boundaries that might lesson the level of segregation'... That is easy to say until the good families threaten to leave and take their kids / dollars with them."
So why do we not get equivalently incensed when the "poor" families WANT to leave because of the terrible schools, and cannot? What good does it do to change school boundaries, for any reason, if you do not change the schools? Throw a bunch of unlucky kids in with a few lucky kids, and you get an unmanageable mess that discourages both "kinds" of students. What you need is a school that meets students where they are and, with well-directed extra funding, moves them beyond where they would otherwise be. Done well, you will actually, gradually, break the cycle of poverty and dysfunction.
One of the things I have always been proudest about with Robbinsdale schools is the tremendous diversity of the community they serve.
--Hiram
If gerrymandering school districts is an important issue, it is an easy one to solve. Simply eliminate district boundaries.
--Hiram
Eugenics: The science of improving a human population by controlled breeding to increase the occurrence of desirable heritable characteristics. Developed largely by Francis Galton as a method of improving the human race, it fell into disfavor only after the perversion of its doctrines by the Nazis.
Only in pretty serious cases have I advocated for forced sterilization. And only after they have added at least a couple of times to our gene pool.
Mostly what I advocate is complete and timely sex education whether parents and communities agree of not. And making Long Acting Reversible Contraception free and readily available from the time people are say ~16 years old. (ie age of consent)
Remember what poor women really want that you want to deny them
Maybe it would be a better world if folks consulted various books before having sex, but somehow I don't think that will ever happen all that much. People want to have sex, and they want to have children. Those are realities that we might just have to accept.
--Hiram
I have talked about what makes good wedge issues. One factor to look for when looking for a wedge is durability. A good wedge issues is never one that is solved easily or at all. They are fundamental, going to who we are. Issues related to sex are classic wedge issues, which is why they are so popular with politicians seeking division. Sexuality is basic, and it is irrational. It cannot be reasoned away. These things make it easy to exploit, politically, something politicians have learned and successfully used throughout history. But there is a downside to wedgeness, and that is, because the issue is so fixed, there is little or nothing to do to affect change. Politicians just can't change fundamental things about us. And this is what you see in practice. Consider the social issues. In Minnesota, certain politicians run ferociously on certain social issues. They win on them, but what happens when they win? Well, those issues disappear. Very often they don't translate into any sort of legislative agenda at all. A friend of mine knowledgeable on such matters, tells me that when they do come up, it happens in obscure sections of the legislative agenda, in the dark of night with no one around. That's characteristic of wedge issues. They are designed to fool the weak minded, by people who have different and far more secret political and legislative goals.
--Hiram
Hiram, If Jerry had his way we could get rid of school districts. Just give Parents vouchers and everyone competes as they wish.
I think RDale is a great district, however for the reasons noted above we are failing our unlucky kids.
I have always said that I am fine with vouchers if we had a way to evaluate each child for the various factors in order to set their voucher amount correctly...
Based on the above, we would need to evaluate:
- Parents
- Community
- Home
- Pre-K performance capability (ie benchmark)
- Special Needs of Child
Jerry's idea that we are going to give out blanket amounts, the Parents will need to pick up the extra and competition will provide is simply unrealistic.
Otherwise charter schools would be working miracles instead of struggling to attain the same level of performance as the status quo publics.
I left a comment here but it has not shown up yet...
If Jerry had his way we could get rid of school districts. Just give Parents vouchers and everyone competes as they wish.
Reorganizing school districts is something to consider. It's one way to get rid of the gerrymander issue.
I do think Robbinsdale is a great district. It's one that accepts challenges others don't. It isn't perfect, but that comes with accepting challenges.
--Hiram
John, we are bordering on agreement, with a few tweaks.
Even "good" school districts "fail 'unlucky' kids" because we do not recognize them as such. It is as much of a crime to throw them in with 'lucky' kids as it is to put them in classes with all unlucky ones like themselves, and then try to teach them as if they were all lucky. Schools need to ADAPT to their students, like Mississippi schools used to do before government told them it wasn't allowed. I always say "every kid can learn," but the schools seem to insist either that "black kids can't learn" or "all kids learn the same."
As for voucher amounts, I would initially set them to the full per-pupil formula amount, including local, that the school is now spending, while claiming they can educate all kids for that. We know that is wrong, but until the schools are willing to put a dollar amount on every IEP (special ed program) and a cash value on their "compensatory education" programs (as well as achievement targets), we cannot do better. That we SHOULD be doing those things is just like we SHOULD be doing vouchers, in that the unions will fight it fang and claw.
And do you mean to stand there and tell me that competition could not provide a better education for less money? Don't they do it all the time, in parochial, private or home schools?
And by the way, you notice charters don't get the funding the nearby publics do? And yet parents who send their kids there are more satisfied? Talk about miracles.
Your last 2 paragraphs display the same old flaws in your logic...
The reality is that the kids / parents for all of the schools you note above vary greatly... And since they and their communities hold the lion's share of determining success...
One really can not say if "the school" is better or worse.
Please remember that on paper Wayzata looks like a much better district than RDale. And yet having been near them for a long time, I think they are equivalent. Only the people attending them vary greatly.
• 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)
• Home environment (ie lead, other air pollution, violence, etc) (10% 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) (25% of problem)
Tell you what: I am going to contact my legislators and continue to hound them to fix the 25% of the problem for which they have responsibility, and offer possible solutions. You can contact whomever you like to solve the other 75%. I'm afraid if I don't solve my 25%, you're not going to have much luck, either.
I continue to believe that if parents are given a choice of school, the "good schools" will continue as before, and the "poor schools" will eventually go out of business because, whatever their merits, these other schools will be CHOSEN by parents, and they will be more satisfied and more involved in their kids' education. It strikes me as highly immoral to say that parents who can afford a choice now should have one, while those too poor and who really NEED a choice must be denied. And I don't care who they are.
Jerry,
In MN we Parents have lots of choice,
- Community Schools
- Magnet Schools
- Charter Schools
- Online Charters
- Open Enrollment
- Home Schooling
- Private Schools
- Moving to a less challenged community
If the kids aren't in a school that fits their needs... Then it is the Parent's fault.
As for your self righteous speech, it will seem much more sincere when you are ready to really support poor women
Sorry, I thought we were trading slanders.
Parents may have a lot of choice on paper, but realistically? How many welfare moms in Minneapolis can afford a house in the suburbs? How many welfare moms in Minneapolis can effectively home school? How many can afford a private school, or even a parochial school? Open enrollment is limited, charter schools struggle academically (according to you) and receive less funding. You seem to enjoy blaming the parents for not exercising choices they do not have, and strenuously object to offering them more realistic choice.
I already support poor women through my taxes-- probably to an extent that does more harm than good, encouraging behaviors that turn out badly. If, as you insist, poverty is caused by poor folks making poor choices, then why should we continue to subsidize those poor choices, or better yet, start subsidizing the good choices?
I agree we should subsidize good choices like making it free for them to be on Long Acting Reversible Contraception if they so choose, and ensure that they are well educated regarding their bodies and sex.
I am so happy we agree. :-)
So if they are well educated about sex, what makes you think they will go to the trouble of getting contraception of any kind, rather than "practicing" what they have learned? That sounds like the old rationale of "they're going to do it anyway, we may as well help them keep safe."
If you really want to educate the young and the restless about sex and their "choices" you need to educate them about the /consequences/ of those choices, and how that limits their choices later in life. And there are a LOT of other choices that can or could be made-- where to send your kid to school, where to send myself to school or job training, how to cook good meals, budget, care for kids, get your GED, etc., ALL of which need to be explained not only to teens, but to those who are already out of school one way or another and are not participating in the economic society. Just giving them Medicaid, or any other welfare, doesn't do any of that. Having a work requirement is just a little taste of what they should be doing.
Changing the school boundaries does nothing.
Please feel free to ignoring what the poor women of Kentucky are begging for.
The upside is that with the GOP making so many far Right choices, soon the DEMs will be back in power.
It is giving these people what they supposedly want that gets us into this mess. Give them education, real choices and good jobs, and the problem goes away. Remember, you get more of what you pay for. Pay people to not work, or to have sex and babies, or to have sex and NOT babies, and what have you gained?
Most of these adults do not qualify for long term benefits themselves. Remember those work requirements...
So if you pay for their Long Acting Reversible Contraception there are hopefully many many fewer babies that are raised poorly...
And for an anti-tax guy like yourself, there are fewer kids receiving financial aid, food stamps, free lunches, free healthcare, fewer people in prison for you to provide for, failing in school, making more poor babies, etc.
And for an anti-abortion guy like yourself. Fewer abortions...
They are going to have sex anyway apparently, so the best we tax payers can do is help make sure unwanted babies do not result.
"They are going to have sex anyway apparently, so the best we tax payers can do is help make sure unwanted babies do not result."
And there you have it. These sub-humans breed like rabbits, and if they won't stop we need to force them to stop. Not encourage or educate them about better behaviors, or offer them (even subsidize) better choices, or accept they MIGHT be redeemable human beings, just "prevent" unwanted babies. Weed out the undesirables.
And I am not anti-tax, I just hate to see tax dollars wantonly thrown at a problem that only makes the problem worse. And "free" abortions and "free" contraception don't help the problem of people having sex rather than contributing to their own and the economy in general.
In short, you see poor people as a problem. I see them as a valuable resource being wasted.
I think you keep missing the point of the articles...
Both wealthy and poor young people are actively having sex.
It is only the poor women who get stuck with the bill.
So, the poor women are being irresponsible by having sex they cannot afford? That proves your point! So do you believe that making this "free" birth control available will suddenly make them responsible enough to take it?? Giving them free food, housing, and medical care doesn't seem to have done the trick. What you suggest sounds like that line in every project plan that says "and here a miracle occurs."
How about teaching them responsibility, self-control, having some hope for the future that includes gainful employment and maybe even marriage before children, and offering them [conditional] social services that provide those incentives and choices?
Unfortunately the mamas and papas are not teaching their children very well, as I keep saying. And you keep denying.
Who exactly do you think is responsible for a child's morals, self control, free time choices, friends, etc?
So if you want them to be responsible Parents, what are you willing to do to hold them accountable?
Let's quit talking about "accountable." I favor a carrot-stick (the stick being expectations in response for our help-- the carrot) approach to teaching them responsibility for themselves and their kids, and providing them with opportunities and help to better their and their children's lives. That takes care of the kids from -1 to 5 years of age.
After that, we really have to "follow through" and offer a decent education to all kids, including those who have already or are about to "fall through the [huge] cracks" in our education system.
This problem is not going to be solved by government taking responsibility for "providing" everything, but by people taking responsibility for themselves and government getting out of the way and letting/helping them to do it.
You keep wanting to deny that this is a Parent problem...
Who exactly do you think is responsible for a child's morals, self control, free time choices, friends, etc?
And I am not proposing that the government provide "everything"... Please feel free to make folks work for welfare, make BD's pay child support, impose work requirements, etc. Did you forget I am a fiscal Conservative?
Just some good inexpensive guard rails to help poorly raised young adults and their babies from suffering the serious long term life altering consequences of foolish youthful actions.
parents are indeed responsible for their child's morality, BUT they have the rightful expectation that the schools will not attempt to subvert that moral teaching in a negative way. They should also expect that the schools WILL at least model, if not actively teach, positive moral traits and behaviors.
And finally I will agree with you that government largesse ought to be accompanied by "guardrails" or expectations for positive behavior. Call it a program of "recommended choices." And if that is all we get it would be an improvement, but what I really want is to stop the ongoing damage we are doing to this sizable swath of humanity by getting them an education that would at least help keep the next generation out of poverty. if I really had my way, we would be offering these poor people a lot more than just school choice, but a thorough system of help that lets them overcome their past mistakes or calamities. Self-sufficiency is a great motivator; self-esteem cannot be easily taught and must be earned.
After all the times I have linked the what poor women want... Have you ever read it?
These are the "moral" schools you support and the girls/parents are failing miserably...
Please feel free to continue to judge these poor women as amoral, and keep denying them what they are begging for.
When you get to the pearly gates you can say how you preached to them and those jezebels just kept spreading their legs and ignoring you. :-)
OK, I read it. What in there was supposed to change my mind? I did not see anywhere where women are "begging" for anything. What I see is that they wish they had "known better."
I notice you use the word "amoral" rather than the word "immoral." That is basically the way I look at it, that these women were never taught a moral basis for their sexual activity and its consequences, or they were told they could ignore society's norms and expectations. Somebody told them that birth control and abortion ought to be free and that therefore they could have as much sex as they wanted. That is a completely amoral view, which society would normally say is immoral. That is, the absence of morality is not immorality but amorality. In effect, the tragic results are the same either way.
I was struck by one short paragraph, saying that these birth control clinics and such were not very effective because women refused to come in. So if you "can't stop them from having sex" and they refuse to accept your "help," why isn't there an option to teach them some values that might prevent the problem in the first place?
and doyou really think adjusting school boundaries in the Appalachians is going to add anything to academic or social improvement?
"these women were never taught a moral basis for their sexual activity and its consequences, or they were told they could ignore society's norms and expectations"
Actually that was all they were taught and that was the problem... As was clearly stated in the piece. Kentucky teaches abstinence based education and these are the results...
"Across Kentucky, 47% of pregnancies are unplanned, costing the state $75 million and the federal government nearly $303 million a year. This is according to the latest figures culled by the Guttmacher Institute, a leading research and policy organization focused on sexual and reproductive health.
In Appalachian Kentucky, the teen birth rate is 68% higher than the country and 34% higher than the rest of the state, according to a report by several groups, including the Appalachian Regional Commission. "
This section amazes me...
"She wishes the United States would follow the lead of countries like Sweden, where age-appropriate sex education starts in kindergarten. If left to their own devices, she warns, kids will Google answers to even the most innocent questions and enter the depths of online porn.
She used to run an online program for 21 school districts but quit after attending a reproductive rights rally at the state Capitol. She wanted to write about the experience and was told she could as long as she didn't include the words "birth control" or "sex ed."
Those words were seen as "too political," she says. "It felt like a gag order to not be able to say those words at this unprecedented time."
Children and young adults need safe spaces to talk, she says. They should understand the importance of consent and the way their bodies work. She need only think about the young people who've shown up, including the six transgender students who joined her for a sex ed workshop this year, to know that the hunger for authentic conversation is real.
Though her full-time job now is to raise money for Appalshop, she organizes sex ed programs when she can and draws a steady flow of participants -- which often includes chaperones and parents who have plenty to learn, too.
"I'll say, 'If this gets to be too much, you may want to leave.' But no one will leave," she says. "I get 40-year-olds thanking me."
So back woods old men like yourself and the Gov of Kentucky will continue to strive to keep those unfortunate young women stupid, unprotected and like very poor.
So are the choices you make, I leave the judging to a higher power.
Thanks for the insult. Now solve the problem. Suppose you use the usual sex ed principle of, "You should not have sex until you are ready, but if you do, use a condom." Which part of that lesson do you think "stupid, unprotected and poor" do you think they hear?
And you seem to think politics is something OTHER than "what the bulk of the "poli"-- people-- think is right and proper. These women KNOW that premarital sex and abortion is somehow "wrong," but nobody bothers to give them the self-esteem, self-control skills to avoid it. I can teach you how to repair a car. That doesn't make you a safe driver.
Actually... That is your belief that you are trying to force on them.
"premarital sex and abortion is somehow "wrong,"
Especially the premarital sex one. Some of my best and most exciting was pre-marital and there certainly was nothing "wrong" about it at all.
Just like "sky diving", it is GREAT unless you don't have the right knowledge and equipment.
As I said, your preference to keep those unfortunate young women stupid, unprotected and like very poor by keeping knowledge and equipment from them is a choice you are supporting.
And it will be an interesting discussion between you and the angel at heaven's gate.
Angel: "Did you support with holding knowledge and assistance from young innocents which contributed to their poverty, suffering, etc?"
Jerry: "But I did it for the good of their soul. They should have known better and had more self control. Their failures are not my fault."
Glad to hear you concerned for my soul. I think so long as I help the poor as best I can, I will be OK. And encouraging or even tolerating casual sex and the resulting single motherhood or abortion is not my "values," but common sense good decisions that even you have often supported. I wouldn't expect public schools to teach RELIGIOUS values, but I would expect they could teach common societal values that have been proven to lead to better living.
And TMI on your sex life, but are you really saying that all the BDs and BMs share YOUR values?
I am not too concerned about your soul, we all make our own choices in life.
I am not going to judge you for your denying to share knowledge with innocent children...
And I am not going to judge those young adults for making a choice to have premarital sex, especially when that critical knowledge was intentionally with held from them.
What knowledge have they been denied? Is it that "it feels good, do it"? What other knowledge about that "choice" do they need? Have they been told of the consequences, physical, emotional, medical and economic?
And back to the discussion, how would adjusting school boundaries in rural Appalachia have any effect whatsoever on this problem? For that matter, how would adjusting school district boundaries ANYWHERE make any difference?
If you don't understand the knowledge you are advocating with holding from them, you really need to read that article more closely...
"Down the road, past the health department and a craft moonshine distillery, this sort of openness about sex is foreign to the senior women I meet at the recreation center.
They're playing cards and don't stop dealing or looking at their hands to talk.
"Mommy said babies came in suitcases," says one woman, who didn't learn about sex until she got married.
"When I started my monthlies, I was scared to death," says another, who raced to her school's principal's office when she first got her period."
It is not I withholding that information. Some of those things are a family responsibility, a few are the proper purview of "health class" in school, and others SHOULD be left to churches or to societal norms (and I'm not talking about the ubiquitous bed-hopping on TV). If avoiding unwanted single motherhood is the goal, what is WRONG with "not learning about sex until she got married"?
Would you be happy if a bunch of these straight-laced families got included in the boundaries of your "progressive" school, or vice versa?
Jerry,
As long as you are you a supporter of abstinence only education.
You are advocating with holding critical knowledge from young adults.
It would be like offering a drivers education course that said "if you stay between the lines everything will be alright"... Knowing full well that the young driver will face many more challenges once they leave the classroom.
and I would say that what you are suggesting is abstinence FREE education. It would be like telling a driver's ed student that speed limits are just advisory and that there really is no good reason to stay in your own lane. Really, do we still show that "Blood on the Highway" movie in driver's ed?
No... Abstinence would be covered in my ideal complete and thorough sex education curriculum.
Oh, sure, like I always say: "Don't have sex until you're married, but if you do, use a condom." And what part of that sentence do hormone-addled, pop-culture-twisted teens hear? There's the small matter of emphasis. "facts" come naturally and easily. Values do not.
You say that you want citizens to be responsible for their decisions and that government should not impose morality... And yet in this case you want to:
- keep facts from young adults
- keep options from young adults
- have the schools preach a form of morality
And as I always say, Parents are responsible for the child's values. And unfortunately many of the BM and BD's are failing the children.
Now do you want to keep ignoring this or do you want to hold them accountable?
I want people to be educated in and understand the natural consequences of their choices. The "morality" isn't necessary to explain the real-life FACTS that actions have consequences. The kids for whom morality matters should not have that idea contradicted by the schools, and the rest should understand the "facts" that lead to the same sensible choices.
Make up your mind. Do you want to hold parents accountable for teaching sex ed and values to their kids, or do you want them taught sex ed (without values) in the schools?
How exactly would you do this?
"hold parents accountable for teaching sex ed and values to their kids"
Is that what you have decided you want to do, hold parents accountable? I would say that parents have that responsibility already, though many fail to lesser or greater degree. Are you saying that government could force them to do something they do not know how to do, or are reluctant to do? Details, please.
If you don't want schools held accountable for teaching what parents did not, that would be consistent with your stand on academics, with which I strongly disagree.
If we agree that ensuring young adults are taught the facts and values regarding their human sexuality is critical to them making the correct choices... And you don't want the schools to do this...
How do plan to hold BMs / BDs accountable for fulfilling this most important of responsibilities?
Or do you want to keep punishing the young adults and their unintended off spring who are usually trapped in ignorance and poverty like their irresponsible and ignorant BMs / BDs?
Please remember that I support mandatory and thorough sex education in our schools...
Relying on BMs and BDs is your position.
Perhaps it will help to restate the question:
"Make up your mind. Do you want to hold parents accountable for teaching sex ed and values to their kids, or do you want them taught sex ed (without values) in the schools?"
Both.
The school should teach a complete fact based sex education curriculum. (educate)
The Parents should guide their child's morals / values by discussing sexual and interpersonal issues. (beliefs)
This applies to pretty much all aspects of the child development process.
If I had answered...
"Hold parents accountable for teaching sex ed and values to their kids."
How exactly would you do this?
You aren't even up for holding BMs and BDs accountable for ensuring their kids:
- are fed, washed and clothed
- live in a stable nurturing home
- live in a safe community
- are read to and experience pre-school, museums, etc
- observe positive role models
- pushed to do homework, behave, learn, etc
The relationship between "abstinence only education and teen pregnancy.
NPR Teen Rates
TP Teen Pregnancy
And here is another vote for that Mississippi education system...
"Mississippi continues to have the highest teen birth rate, with 55 births per 1,000 girls.
New Hampshire has the lowest rate at just under 16 births per 1,000 girls."
And
"Researchers at the University of Washington in Seattle found that teenagers who received some type of comprehensive sex education were 60 percent less likely to get pregnant or get someone else pregnant. And in 2007, a federal report showed that abstinence-only programs had “no impacts on rates of sexual abstinence.”
So yes through your beliefs and actions you are clearly seeking to keep young adults trapped in ignorance and poverty.
You are willing to support our lying cheating braggart of a President.
But you are not willing to adjust your values to help young women stay baby free.
It is interesting how some people rationalize.
I do not NEED to adjust my values, because my value is that young women should abstain from sex until marriage and that they should not undergo forced sterilization, as others have implied as a solution.
And yes, I believe that values should be taught in the home. I also believe that those values should either be promoted in the schools or, at minimum, not contradicted. A value-free teaching of the sex ed "facts" is contradictory to normal societal values, and it is like handing the kids a box of matches and then being surprised when the house burns down. Or like putting Democrats in charge of government.
You are so cute...
Saying the same thing over and over some how think it will make it true...
"they should not undergo forced sterilization"
I only recommend that for the worst Baby Mommas. Apparently that baby factory is up to 17 kids...
I moved your comment here where others will see it
Post a Comment