Jerry and I have been continuing a pointless argument back here regarding the roles and responsibilities Parents and Schools.
G2A Grad Rates Up Proficiency Down
G2A School Boundary Gerrymandering
G2A Freezing Schools
Jerry is an advocate of giving every child a check for $13,000 so their Parent(s) can send them to a school of their choice. The idea being that:
So Jerry has a point, for kids like mine that would be great deal. All 3 are smart, well behaved, have no special needs, have excellent role models and they have 2 parents at home to coach, tutor and hold them accountable for beliefs, friend choices, behaviors and results. One of whom works from home and is available to them 24/7 as needed. Not to mention we have money for pretty much any instruments, sports equipment, etc. My girls are the epitome of Lucky Kids.
I mean just think... Not only do we have the option to move, go to a private, open enroll, go to a magnet, go to a charter, etc... Now we would be free to choose a Private and maybe get a cash rebate back... (side note: We could have left Rdale at anytime, my daughters were adamant that they loved their somewhat crazy and very diverse schools... And dreaded moving to those boring snobby rich districts.) Beauty is definitely in the eye of the beholder.
So in essence Jerry's idea of giving freedom, opportunity and knowledge is totally summed up with one word: Vouchers
Where as I see giving children freedom, opportunity and knowledge has much more to do with ensuring they have the following:
Of course I disagree... I think society does have the authority and obligation to ensure child(ren) are raised by responsible, capable, mature adults who can afford to do so. If I had my way every adult would be on Long Acting Reversible Contraception until they could pass a parenting test. We won't let anyone legally drive until they are trained and have proven basic competency. Being a responsible Parent is much harder than driving and has more serious longer lasting consequences.
And especially in the case where the household is receiving payments from tax payers. What do you think ?
Here are some links from those post comments:
NPR Teen Rates
TP Teen Pregnancy
What poor women want
Single Parent Household Graph
Teaching: Then and Now
Charles Sykes Rules of Life
HP Punish Parents?
WAPO Punish Parents?
Ed Week Accountable
G2A Grad Rates Up Proficiency Down
G2A School Boundary Gerrymandering
G2A Freezing Schools
Jerry is an advocate of giving every child a check for $13,000 so their Parent(s) can send them to a school of their choice. The idea being that:
- Parent(s) are subject matter experts and know which school / education is best for their child.
- The "great schools" will succeed, the "bad schools" will fail and all kids will be better off.
- And kids that cost more than $13,000 to teach will not exist because competition will work miracles.
- Or the Parent(s) will just need to pay more. Or these most unlucky of kids will need to remain in the Public School system. And we are not sure if Parent(s) would get to keep any extra if their kids are less expensive to teach. And we are not sure how to keep the "choice schools" from cherry picking their students.
- However these details seem unimportant from Jerry's perspective.
So Jerry has a point, for kids like mine that would be great deal. All 3 are smart, well behaved, have no special needs, have excellent role models and they have 2 parents at home to coach, tutor and hold them accountable for beliefs, friend choices, behaviors and results. One of whom works from home and is available to them 24/7 as needed. Not to mention we have money for pretty much any instruments, sports equipment, etc. My girls are the epitome of Lucky Kids.
I mean just think... Not only do we have the option to move, go to a private, open enroll, go to a magnet, go to a charter, etc... Now we would be free to choose a Private and maybe get a cash rebate back... (side note: We could have left Rdale at anytime, my daughters were adamant that they loved their somewhat crazy and very diverse schools... And dreaded moving to those boring snobby rich districts.) Beauty is definitely in the eye of the beholder.
So in essence Jerry's idea of giving freedom, opportunity and knowledge is totally summed up with one word: Vouchers
Where as I see giving children freedom, opportunity and knowledge has much more to do with ensuring they have the following:
- 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
- given complete and accurate sexual education
- given access to reliable birth control
- coached regarding positive beliefs, values and personal interactions
- held accountable to do homework, behave, learn, etc
- etc
Of course I disagree... I think society does have the authority and obligation to ensure child(ren) are raised by responsible, capable, mature adults who can afford to do so. If I had my way every adult would be on Long Acting Reversible Contraception until they could pass a parenting test. We won't let anyone legally drive until they are trained and have proven basic competency. Being a responsible Parent is much harder than driving and has more serious longer lasting consequences.
And especially in the case where the household is receiving payments from tax payers. What do you think ?
Here are some links from those post comments:
NPR Teen Rates
TP Teen Pregnancy
What poor women want
Single Parent Household Graph
Teaching: Then and Now
Charles Sykes Rules of Life
HP Punish Parents?
WAPO Punish Parents?
Ed Week Accountable
8 comments:
Not directly related... Well maybe it is...
MinnPost 43 Schools Warned
I am fine with requiring child support from the Father all the time. (when he actually has money and can be found)
Work rules are good but problematic when it is single parent household and the Parent makes very little income. Unless you are ready to pay for quality childcare for the kid(s) I think it may be good to make Mom work and have little one getting some good socializing / experiences.
From Jerry:
So you DO support forced sterilization? I only intended to imply that you might support such extreme positions, as you ascribe terrible motivations to me. And even in that very limited case, what is wrong with less extreme measures, like requiring child support or work rules, or removing children from the home?
And we keep getting off track. How would the school district boundary have made any difference whatsoever to this extreme BM situation? Or ANY BM situation?
From G2A:
Please remember that I am fine making welfare Mom's with 2 kids be forced to give up or abort her 3rd baby if she gets pregnant again. You are the one that resists stopping the insanity.
No sense letting an insane woman like Angel Adams keep popping out kids just to have them taken away.
When lucky people draw boundaries to prevent unlucky kids from coming to their schools, we know the result... The kids on the unlucky side of the line lack good peer role models, have to try to learn in disruptive classrooms, are less safe, etc.
From Jerry:
I don't know why you always want to go to the most inhumane and potentially counterproductive means of achieving a questionably desirable objective. A mother on welfare should already be on a path to employment-- sponsored daycare if necessary but "childcare pools" preferred, should have already been required to name the father of her other two kids, be receiving child support and encouraged to marry, told the facts of life and taught other life skills, and handed a voucher for her kids to get an education, if applicable. If she has a third kid under those restrictions, it may be that she is getting her life together enough to be able to handle it. The idea that government would then come in and force abortion, like the Chinese government did, strikes most of us as rather horrific as well as unnecessary.
As for school district boundaries, certainly the lucky people – those who win school board elections and the teachers union members that support them – have earned the right to draw them. So long as they are not outrageous about it, those boundaries have to go someplace and everybody is going to end up in one school or another. According to you, school boundaries don't mean much with the "option" of open enrollment. I don't believe that, but true or not, my experience in Mississippi convinces me that schools educate better with homogenous classes. Mixing advantaged and disadvantaged kids harms the education of all. We used to talk about "outcome based education" where every child was expected to master the material to the same level. That bored the better students witless and they disrupted the class. Proceed at a quicker pace and the slowest students get left behind, frustrated and disruptive. The more diversity in a class the more serious this problem becomes. The current system of drawing school boundaries may or may not segregate the advantaged kids from the disadvantaged ones, but what is certain is that our public schools are simply not inclined to educate disadvantaged kids from where they find them. my belief is that it can be done and should be done, rather than worrying about artificial things like school boundaries.
sorry, but it will be impossible in the short space to rebut the dozens of misconceptions you have about my position. I think it is based on common sense, an understanding of human nature, and a belief that people given freedom and responsibility will make better choices than under a regime of coercion and dependency.
Does this mean you think providing these for children are bad choices?
•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
•given complete and accurate sexual education
•given access to reliable birth control
•coached regarding positive beliefs, values and personal interactions
•held accountable to do homework, behave, learn, etc
•etc
Please note that people who are providing these to their children will experience no "coercion"...
I am not sure what the list has to do with "dependency"...
It seems holding BMs and BDs accountable will reduce dependency while protecting the children.
Where as your desire to cut government programs and make the BMs / BDs deal with the natural consequences puts the kids at risk of hunger and worse.
It should have nothing to do with dependency, except that the government creates and perpetuates it as such. My desire to cut government programs is largely because they foster dependency and stifle individual responsibility and freedom. If people do not suffer the natural consequences of their choices, how are they to learn?
The challenge is that your plan involves making the innocent children suffer for their Mama / Papa's poor choices.
What again should those young children learn from:
- being hungry, dirty,
- living a high mobility or homeless life
- living in high risk environments
- not getting to experience pre-k, museums, etc
- living with dysfunctional adult(s) who can barely take care of themselves
- not getting sex education or protection in those high risk societies
- having a dysfunctional adult teach them beliefs, values and personal interactions
•not being held accountable to do homework, behave, learn, etc
•etc
Post a Comment