From Laurie:
I am not sure why Laurie thinks I would disagree with this... I am all for making families healthier and wealthier... Which means promoting households with 2 capable adults in it to help pay the bills and raise the kids. And limiting the number of kids to what you can afford.
By the way, you pretty much wimped out on this comment string. Now some comments from this new link:
Here is an article for John and Jerry to disagree with: The Atlantic Better Schools Won’t Fix America: Like many rich Americans, I used to think educational investment could heal the country’s ills—but I was wrong. Fighting inequality must come first.
I am not sure why Laurie thinks I would disagree with this... I am all for making families healthier and wealthier... Which means promoting households with 2 capable adults in it to help pay the bills and raise the kids. And limiting the number of kids to what you can afford.
By the way, you pretty much wimped out on this comment string. Now some comments from this new link:
He points to the plight of “children who frequently change schools due to poor housing; have little help with homework; have few role models of success; have more exposure to lead and asbestos; have untreated vision, ear, dental, or other health problems; … and live in a chaotic and frequently unsafe environment.
Indeed, multiple studies have found that only about 20 percent of student outcomes can be attributed to schooling, whereas about 60 percent are explained by family circumstances—most significantly, income. Now consider that, nationwide, just over half of today’s public-school students qualify for free or reduced-price school lunches, up from 38 percent in 2000. Surely if American students are lagging in the literacy, numeracy, and problem-solving skills our modern economy demands, household income deserves most of the blame—not teachers or their unions.
So I have to ask... Would giving everyone more money make them better, more responsible, more capable parents? I don't think so... Though I agree it would help some kids.
If we really want to give every American child an honest and equal opportunity to succeed, we must do much more than extend a ladder of opportunity—we must also narrow the distance between the ladder’s rungs. We must invest not only in our children, but in their families and their communities. We must provide high-quality public education, sure, but also high-quality housing, health care, child care, and all the other prerequisites of a secure middle-class life. And most important, if we want to build the sort of prosperous middle-class communities in which great public schools have always thrived, we must pay all our workers, not just software engineers and financiers, a dignified middle-class wage.
61 comments:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2019/06/11/is-it-better-be-born-smart-or-rich-you-probably-wont-like-answer/?utm_term=.5f86a3bb3f00
WAPO Better to be Born Smart or Rich
GeorgeTown Born to Win, Schooled to Lose
Detailed Report
I think the first two policy items would pay off well.
Policy Recommendations
The fact that so many talented young people don’t get
the chance to develop into top students is intolerable—
but the class and race mobility we find in our analysis
shows that nothing is set in stone. Policy can amend the
shortcomings of American meritocracy and help turn
the equal opportunity ideal into a reality.
To that end, we offer the following recommendations:
Expand academic interventions that start before kindergarten.
By the time students start kindergarten, they are
already on different paths along which their advantages
and disadvantages will continue to accumulate.78 Early
childhood interventions are the most effective way
to decrease the effects of adverse environments and
improve educational outcomes.79 Increased access to
high-quality preschool programs can increase school
readiness and achievement and have long-term effects
on educational attainment and earnings.80 Currently,
programs such as Head Start and the Child Care and
Development Fund, as well as federal and state tax
strategies, are available to help some families afford
quality childcare, but more could be done to increase
access to all families.
Continue academic interventions throughout K–12.
Later interventions, while not as cost-effective, are
also important. Though they might not have much
influence on cognitive ability,81 they have been shown to
increase non-cognitive ability, particularly grit.82 Another
important aspect of later interventions is that they build
on the progress of earlier interventions. Innovative
schools have seen dramatic successes, as measured
by high school graduation and college enrollment
rates.83 These schools tend to take a wrap-around
approach that sets high expectations for students
and provides the resources needed for them to meet
those expectations. Although these successes can be
challenging to replicate, they are promising models.
Thought they are simply trying to compensate for irresponsible incapable parent(s) and risky communities...
My point being that money helps, but having 2 capable smart responsible parent helps more...
The title of that WAPO piece does amaze me...
"is-it-better-be-born-smart-or-rich-you-probably-wont-like-answer"
I'll have to look at the piece in more detail...
How did they decide that money was the causal factor and not family type, parent academic level, etc?
Sure, but good schools are something in our power to provide.
--Hiram
How do we do that?
It seems to be escaping us.
Our schools are improving, they are certainly better than they used to be, but we just have to work at it. It's important to remember one of the most basic rules of life and politics I know, "Enough is never enough".
--Hiram
Please provide a source that backs this up...
"certainly better than they used to be"
I agree that they cover more topics and provide more for the successful students...
However I really doubt that they are doing much better with kids from challenging families.
Though much of the problem is with our society.
Though of Tenure and Paying/Protecting Old Teachers more for being Old isn't Helping either.
Isn't it odd how these "studies" seem to show what those who quote them WANT them to show, rather than simply offering up the raw data and letting us draw our own conclusions? Like this one:
"Indeed, multiple studies have found that only about 20 percent of student outcomes can be attributed to schooling, whereas about 60 percent are explained by family circumstances."
We are supposed to believe that, by Pareto's law, we must cure all our social ills before we can get better academic performance. That has proven difficult if not impossible for the last 75 years or so. A far more achievable goal would be to improve the schools to "intervene" in these individual cases and "correct" for the other factors. Education was supposed to be the "great equalizer" that would "break the cycle of poverty." Are we admitting that we throw vast sums at the public schools and are getting so little back for it?
You seem to be blaming parents of low income students rather than our broken economy.
Laurie,
How is changing our economy going to promote:
- couples getting and staying married
- having babies only after they are in a stable relationship
- parent(s) valuing education and helping their kids succeed
- that only driven capable teachers are allowed in our classrooms
- other
My Sister in Law teaches in a SD school with a lot of diversity. She loves the Parent(s) of the kids from SE Asia. They are serious about helping and holding their kids accountable. Unfortunately most of the Hispanic Parent(s) just don't get it or just don't care. :-(
Jerry,
Helping young women to learn about sex and how to protect themselves from unwanted pregnancies... And making that protection free and readily available would go a long way towards "no unplanned pregnancies", "unprepared parenting" and "neglected children"...
Unfortunately you resist this common sense solution.
The Religious mantra: Keep them Stupid, Keep them Unprotected, Make them Keep the Baby, Keep them poor...
You seem to be ignoring the main premise of the article that the level of inequality in our economy with the top 1% getting such a large share of the income is a big problem.
Maybe parents would have more time and energy for parenting if they made a living wage. Also, people who make more money are more likely to get and stay married.
Gee, teaching young women about sex, yada yada... Where do you propose this education take placce? In the same schools where half the kids do not read at grade level, and who pass simple math only about 30% of the time? How about a SHORT term solution, where we give the kids an academic leg up, better economic and social opportunities as a result, and break the cycle over the long term? Sounds like you will only be happy stuffing some kids back inside their mothers. How about helping the ones already here?
Laurie,
I think you are confusing correlation and causation again.
To stay married requires emotional stability, self sacrifice, patience, continual learning, dedication, personal responsibility and many other positive qualities. These qualities also make for better Parents, better workers, better savers, better investors, etc... For the most part people do not stay together because of their income, they have their marriage and income because of their beliefs, behaviors, etc.
And yes stress and a lack of income can break couples apart, but it can also pull them together...
Jerry,
My crazy plan addresses many issues...
You are fixated on one improvement idea. It is too bad for the kids.
Laurie,
How do you intended to stop the 1% from getting such a large share of the income?
Do you want to mandate higher wages?
Will American consumers be willing to pay more for their products and services?
Will you tax the wealthy even more progressively and arbitrarily give it to people whether they are responsible citizens / parent(s), dead beats or criminals?
Who will decide?
The capitalistic model may have it's flaws, but we American's do get what we pay for...
Have you traded in the Prius yet on a good Designed and Made in America car yet?
It looks like the Chevy Volt scored near the top. :-)
Laurie,
Now let's stick with picking on you for another minute.
You chose to send your money to Japan for a car. I am fine with that since I support capitalism.
People like me who likely own Japanese or Toyota stock in some mutual fund make money due to your consumer decision to not hire domestic labor and support US unions.
Now is the idea that you want to tax us more because you chose to buy foreign?
If it was just you this would not be an issue... The problem is that there are 100+ million of you buying high foreign content goods and services to save your selves money...
Which means that millions of American workers lose their jobs or their bargaining power...
And your answer is to tax the investors?
"You are fixated on one improvement idea. It is too bad for the kids."
And yet your "plan" has lots and lots of moving parts with no real expectation of results for another generation. I have one simple component to my plan, which is that the schools should meet the kids where they are, add high expectations of behavior and accomplishment, and get them there. It happens every day, all over, just not enough. It isn't like we don't know how, or that we aren't spending enough money, we just have to quit accepting the excuse that demographics is destiny and start breaking the cycle. The schools we supposedly control. Human behavior "we" do not.
In short, the best way to raise academic achievement is to raise academic achievement, not to twiddle with some second-, third-, or fourth-hand supposedly causal parameter.
How do you know what is causation in regards to being single - low income or personal qualities. I think low income is a big factor.
As for how to fix our broken economy there are lots of people are way smarter than me with knowledge about what needs to be done. E. Warren is one person who is full of plans:
https://elizabethwarren.com/issues#rebuild-the-middle-class
Capitalism can have a different (and better) income distribution. It did in the past and does in other countries.
A 2 minute google search turned up this policy idea to move us in the right direction:
https://www.americanprogress.org/issues/economy/reports/2019/06/04/470621/ending-special-tax-treatment-wealthy/
Jerry,
Keeping on that one small aspect of the child's life.
While the child is neglected in many other aspects of their life and development. :-(
It is so unfortunate...
Laurie's Links:
EW Rebuild Middle Class
Ending Special Treatment for the Very Wealthy
Laurie,
So Warren's plan is to let you and people like you to keep:
- spending on foreign employees, foreign companies & foreign taxes
- while increasing the cost of doing business in the USA
What could go wrong with this?
I believe Elizabeth has a plan called tax the rich. Why doesn't the current level of inequality offend you? Do you think the 1% deserve all the money?
https://www.vox.com/2018/7/29/17627134/income-inequality-chart
Laurie,
I am fine with closing some of the tax code "loop holes".
And I was against the 2017 personal tax cuts as you remember.
But as long as US Consumers value saving money more than paying their fellow co-workers...
This is a big problem...
Here is another discussion of Trade Deficits
"But a growing trade deficit may also reflect a healthy US economy. With expanding economic growth comes increased consumer spending, which comprises more than 70% of US gross domestic product. Given that Americans consume more than they produce, a strong economy can increase Americans’ appetite for foreign-made products and contribute to the trade deficit."
Now just think if all those folks supported domestic workers when times were good...
Now back to these...
"Maybe parents would have more time and energy for parenting if they made a living wage."
"Also, people who make more money are more likely to get and stay married."
"How do you know what is causation in regards to being single - low income or personal qualities. I think low income is a big factor."
Now I do agree that more discretionary income enables fiscally responsible people to have more free time and options. And to live with less stress. However we know from a whole host of lottery winners that many people are not fiscally responsible.
So I really dislike the idea of arbitrarily robbing from Peter and giving to Paul / Paulina. Especially with the Liberal view that no expectations should be placed on Paul / Paulina in exchange for this investment in them.
I am sticking with my belief that marriage stability has more to do with people than with what is in their bank account. Unfortunately a LOT of young people have been raised in single or fractured homes and simply do not understand how to maintain a long term relationship.
So do you think our economy should set up so a HS Graduate Mom with 2 Kids and no child support can be Middle Class?
Or should our economy be set up with the expectation that middle class requires 2 contributing parents?
Children in Poverty
"Children are much more likely to be poor if they live in a family headed by a single mother than if they live in a married-couple family. In 2017, 41 percent of children living in single-mother families were poor, compared with 8 percent of children living in married-couple families. This pattern holds for white, black, Hispanic, and Asian children. For example, nearly half of black and Hispanic children in single-mother families lived below the federal poverty line in 2017 (43 and 48 percent, respectively). However, only 10 percent of black children and 15 percent of Hispanic children in married-couple families lived in poverty in 2017."
I think the two kids deserve food, housing, and healthcare which is hard for the single mom with high school education to provide with current low pay of many jobs.
If the min wage was raised to $15 it would be a little easier for her. Increasing the EITC might be even a better idea. We could tax the rich more to pay for increased EITC.
If those parents of the low income kids were paid more they might choose to get married.
http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/2014/12/22/why-its-easier-for-affluent-women-to-find-mr-right/
Why it is easier for affluent women to find Mr Right
I find this interesting and disturbing....
"The problems of poor women are creeping into the middle-income range. More successful women with a high school and community college degrees find themselves in a frantic race to find a partner in a dwindling group of equivalent men.
Unable to find a husband, these women are often choosing to have baby first. As of 2000, middle-income American women have their first child two years before getting married on average. Both men and women in the middle range tend to cycle through jobs and relationships. They are more likely to marry than the poor — but are also more likely than those with fewer resources to live together, marry, divorce and then do it all over with somebody else."
Now if a single woman who can pay her bills and she has a strong social support system (ie parents, siblings, etc) decides to become a single mother... So be it. Odds are the child or 2 will be well taken care of.
However if a woman who struggles to pay her own bills and has little in the way of a support system decides to make babies. I think that is very irresponsible and wrong.
When are we as a society going to start putting the children's needs first?
People want to have kids. It's a biological imperative.
--Hiram
Biological Imperative: The needs of living organisms required to perpetuate their existence and survival.
You have got to be kidding...
It will be amusing if over population and the resulting pollution ends the existence of humans. :-)
Unfortunately I think many of the worst mothers are like that crazy cat lady...
She wants the love even as she has them living in filth and going hungry. :-(
They don't make you take a test before having children. The thing about being pro choice is you have accept that people choices other than those one might prefer. It's the price we pay for not accepting moral guidance from the Donald Trump's of the world.
--Hiram
Hiram,
As I have said over and over, people from both the Left and Right care about the woman / man's rights...
Unfortunately they seem to have little concern for the child's rights. :-(
We require that people take classes, pass tests and pay for insurance before we let them drive a car on our roads.
And yet for some reason we will let pretty much anyone make and keep a child until they have seriously screwed up that child. :-(
sigh Driving is a privilege, not a right. Reproduction is a right.
As I said...
As I have said over and over, people from both the Left and Right care about the woman / man's rights...
Unfortunately they seem to have little concern for the child's rights. :-(
Baloney. Don't pretend to be morally superior to the 99% of Left AND Right alike who care about children. And all of us are inherently angered by anyone that would harm a child deliberately. Now if people harm children because they don't know better or because they lack opportunity, you might try to fix that. For example, you could require our public schools to stop abridging the rights of children to a free and equal education.
I am not sure if you care about children. But you sure care about getting your one solution implemented.
Now if you actually did care about children, I would think you would fight to ensure:
- the pregnancy is planned and the parent(s) are happy / prepared
- the mother has excellent pre-natal health care
- in baby is raised in a stable safe home with capable parent(s)
- the child is getting fed a healthy diet and has good hygiene
- the child is free to attend pre-school
- etc...
Unfortunately you are against most of the programs that help kids. As are most anti-abortion folks...
And by the way, I am sure most people care about children in a general way...
But what I said was...
People from both the Left and Right care about the woman / man's rights...
Unfortunately they seem to have little concern for the child's rights. :-(
Please remember that you are the one unwilling to have Angel's tubes tied...
I am pretty sure that proves my point.
Here are some interesting parental questions...
Reference 1
Reference 2
/I/ am against programs that help kids? Like being in opposition to killing them before they are born??!
I am against "programs" such as a free and equal (and effective) public education??
I care about kids, mine and everybody else's, but it is not my right NOR my responsibility, directly or indirectly, to provide for the daily needs of everybody else's kids.
I am among the 99+% that do care, and yet you seem fixated on ONE woman, and for that you would impose your single-minded Draconian "solution" on everybody. Sorry, but the human race cannot be perfected as you demand, especially by flawed human government fiat. A quick look around confirms it.
Let's demand government fix what government broke-- the public education system. After that we can work on the more long-term and much more difficult fix of what government broke-- the welfare system.
Jerry,
Protecting an embryo / fetus to just abandon the baby once it is born is about controlling the morality of others, not about truly helping the baby /child when it really needs it.
And yes you are more worried about your wallet than the children. That has been well documented over the years.
I just pick on Angel because if you are unwilling to stop that madness, there is no way you are going to stop one of the single welfare mom's with 2 kids already.
As for blaming the schools, maybe you should read the initial article again. :-)
This one is classic...
"it is not my right NOR my responsibility, directly or indirectly, to provide for the daily needs of everybody else's kids."
It is probably what the old men in Texas are saying as the celebrate saving "our kids".
As I often say, Conservative only care about kids until they leave the cervix...
And you only care about high-paying jobs for teachers and administrators, the kids be d**ned. I want to see kids brought into this world and educated. Your concern lies in keeping them from coming into the world at all, but once they do, you want government set the standard for caring for them, and demand that, somehow, all the rest of us foot the bill for it.
Yes, I care about my wallet because, supposedly, that I control. I care about, but do NOT control, what other people do with their kids. How other people's kids get educated, I have invested in that and expect accountability. Now, what irrational twist are you going to put on all that, so that "conservative bad, John good"?
"it is not my right NOR my responsibility, directly or indirectly, to provide for the daily needs of everybody else's kids." T/F?
You seem to be forgetting items 1 & 2 in my proposal.
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.
And yes I am fine with Roe V Wade abortions because I do believe it is the Mother's embryo / fetus. However if people want to mandate that the baby be born, then they should care for that child before and after the cervix.
If you stick your nose in their business and follow Christian convictions. Yes it is your responsibility to ensure that the children of our country are safe, fed, nurtured, etc.
Hmmm. The first seems indirect. The way to get academic achievement is to measure and demand that academic achievement improve. How the schools/teachers/district gets there is (or should be) up to them. Plenty of room for improvement before we start worrying about improving the "inputs."
Roe v. Wade was a legal construct, built on a legal fiction. Still it is not without merit as a compromise, but only among those who will allow a compromise! It's still not my responsibility, either way. You get pregnant, you are responsible for the result, all the way. I will help with the kids if you ask.
I am flexible regarding how we weaken the School system bureaucracy and hold them accountable.
Legal fiction????
God will be so disappointed with you...
Letting all those children suffer needlessly...
God will as God wills. You are not He. Is it better for a child to suffer in poverty than to be killed at birth? And where do you get "needlessly"? You really believe that YOU can supply all needs, for all people, for all time? I surely cannot.
Legal fiction = the "right to privacy" that appears nowhere in the Constitution. I ask: If you commit a murder and nobody sees you do it, are you protected because you did it in private?
No one kills a child a birth.
It is and has been illegal for a long time.
I have no desire to provide all for all.
Just want to ensure children are in good homes and taken care of.
If a person can not qualify to be a foster or adoptive parent, why would we let them take any child home?
Back to the usual questions. When does an embryo / fetus become a human?
One can not murder some cells...
If you insist parent(s) need to be responsible...
And government needs to stay out of the parent(s) way...
Then stay out of their way...
If you don't think parents should be responsible, and that government needs to monitor their every move in what government, in its infinite wisdom, thinks best, then you not only hate freedom but deny basic human nature. All I really want of government is to set out some rules, give people the freedom and responsibility for following them, and punishing when they stray. It is not my job, or your job, or by extension government's job to make everything good for everybody, and I don't care if you limit that desire to just children, it's far too much authoritarianism with little hope of ever working. Now if you offer those same people opportunity rather strict mandates, maybe...
An embryo becomes a potential human at the moment of conception-- at the time the DNA is joined. It's not a potential fish or marmot, it's a human being. Now, at the point it becomes viable outside the womb, approx. 5 months, it should also achieve independent legal status with a right to life. That is a legal, ethical and moral breakpoint. Either side, States should be allowed to regulate.
How about we get back on topic?
"Kids Need More than Good Schools"
OK, so why not start with good schools, something we know how to do? Why should we allow another whole generation of kids to become failures while we wait for your fabulous social re-engineering of our whole society to bear fruit? Your suggestions 1&2 are indirect and general, when what is needed, right now, is individualized instruction and intervention, regardless of who/what/how/when it gets done, and regardless of how much we pay the superintendent.
I think Parent's should be responsible, however sometimes they are not. Then society should hold them accountable. Just saying "they are responsible" is pointless.
If you can not afford to feed your 2 children without government assistance. It is irresponsible of you to have a third. Now what should society do about that? With holding money seems a way to harm the child(ren).
Please remember that my "authoritarianism" only impacts those people accepting public assistance. It does not impact most people.
Unfortunately anti-abortion folks want to confer human rights on that embryo the day it is conceived... :-(
And the pro-choice folks want the other extreme.
Unfortunately your "good schools" equals "freely chosen schools" is a failed concept.
Good schools are schools where the majority of parent(s)are capable and responsible... The school can help, but the important stuff occurs at home.
To support my pro-choice opinion...
Here is Laurie's silly comment from the other post...
"Aborting an embryo or fetus is not killing a child."
I mean the fetus apparently goes from ~9 weeks to birth
Post a Comment