What the heck is TAKS Testing? (Paris, Athens: homes, income, quality of life)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 1.5 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I don't disagree with you Steve. I have also had similar experiences, for example, homeless people in Austin always wear better shoes than 90% of the population in developing countries (i have worked in developing countries and seen the footwear of folks who live on about $2 a day).
And I have worked with "high risk" kids who have access to game systems that far outstrip the stuff that my kids have. Not to mention the fancy pickups. Some of that is pure market distortion -- folks who feel that they will never be able to afford to buy a house for example, often put much more money into their cars than folks with more middle class aspirations. It can be "hippie-cool" to wear thrift store clothes, it is much harder to do when it is a reflection of true need. Some poorer folk for example, feel that they can't afford to send their kid to college but they can afford to save and borrow to make sure that they go to the prom in a limo and tux.
The Vietnamese boat people that you mentioned are a classic example of the immigrant paradox -- it takes risk-taking, planning, courage, and bravery to leave one's home behind, find a place on a boat, leave ones country and start over. Turns out that many immigrants share the same genetic markers as entrepeneurs -- high risk tolerance, ability to forget mistakes and move on, etc. Many immigrants throughout history had siblings who faced similar conditions in the home country but who chose to stay put.
You shouldn't feel guilty for the advantages that middle class stability confers but there is growing evidence of bio-chemical impact of poverty and high stress. It isn't all just poor motivation and lack of planning skills. Read Geoffry Canada on the Harlem Children's Zone. To get kids into college, he realized he had to start with prenatal care and education, intensive preschool education and vocabulary building, and create a new community culture of achievement.
And that is hard. It is much easier for stressed out people facing tremendous challenges to numb themselves with tv, video games, junk food and to buy shiny emblems of success rather than do the hard work to build skills and net worth.
My point is that if you step outside of your own experience, it is a lot easier to see how difficult it is for some kids to pass the TAKS even if your daughter or my son has no difficulty at all.
We're probably closer to agreement than it seems, with regard to stepping outside of our own experiences. I find that hard to do.
Those of us who've bootstrapped up in life, overcoming all sorts of obstacles, but sticking with it and working hard to eventually reach some semblance of success tend to arrogantly think that "since I did it, anyone can do it". In other words, we believe in the potential of others instead of looking for excuses to explain their failures.
And we have little pity or compassion for people who don't try hard or take advantage of the opportunities abound, because we know what's possible in this country for those willing to work hard, no matter the hand they were dealt in life.
And so, when a child of mine (influenced obviously by my commentaries during drives to and from school) wonders rhetorically how it's possible that someone can't pass a simple TAKS test, it's not that she doesn't know that it's difficult for some. I think it's more that she knows it's doable for anyone who chooses to make the effort to learn the material, and she wonders why there would be those unwilling or unable to try hard enough.
Am I making any sense or just digging myself in deeper?
I don't disagree with you Steve. I have also had similar experiences, for example, homeless people in Austin always wear better shoes than 90% of the population in developing countries (i have worked in developing countries and seen the footwear of folks who live on about $2 a day).
And I have worked with "high risk" kids who have access to game systems that far outstrip the stuff that my kids have. Not to mention the fancy pickups. Some of that is pure market distortion -- folks who feel that they will never be able to afford to buy a house for example, often put much more money into their cars than folks with more middle class aspirations. It can be "hippie-cool" to wear thrift store clothes, it is much harder to do when it is a reflection of true need. Some poorer folk for example, feel that they can't afford to send their kid to college but they can afford to save and borrow to make sure that they go to the prom in a limo and tux.
The Vietnamese boat people that you mentioned are a classic example of the immigrant paradox -- it takes risk-taking, planning, courage, and bravery to leave one's home behind, find a place on a boat, leave ones country and start over. Turns out that many immigrants share the same genetic markers as entrepeneurs -- high risk tolerance, ability to forget mistakes and move on, etc. Many immigrants throughout history had siblings who faced similar conditions in the home country but who chose to stay put.
You shouldn't feel guilty for the advantages that middle class stability confers but there is growing evidence of bio-chemical impact of poverty and high stress. It isn't all just poor motivation and lack of planning skills. Read Geoffry Canada on the Harlem Children's Zone. To get kids into college, he realized he had to start with prenatal care and education, intensive preschool education and vocabulary building, and create a new community culture of achievement.
And that is hard. It is much easier for stressed out people facing tremendous challenges to numb themselves with tv, video games, junk food and to buy shiny emblems of success rather than do the hard work to build skills and net worth.
I don't disagree with any of this. Well said in fact. Right on target and it all makes sense.
But what we're talking about, to some degree, is the breaking of cycles. The welfare mom, in most instances, is not going to instill in her kid the belief that something better can happen, and thus that kid may never summon the effort from within. It's unfortunately up to that kid to get lucky, get determined, get mad - get some sort of motivation - to break the cycle. That starts with trying hard and doing well in school.
steve
Last edited by austin-steve; 05-01-2010 at 02:07 PM..
Reason: typos
American "poor people" are better off, better fed, have more stuff, more educational opportunities, programs for betterment, safer environments, etc. than most of the rest of the world's population. Most of our American poor are fat, hardly starving, while truly poor people die every year in third world countries, by the millions.
No it's not. A quick google search reveals some interesting facts:
Quote:
The average "poor" person, as defined by the government, has a living standard far higher than the public imagines. The following are facts about persons defined as "poor" by the Census Bureau, taken from various government reports:
Forty-three percent of all poor households actually own their own homes. The average home owned by persons classified as poor by the Census Bureau is a three-bedroom house with one-and-a-half baths, a garage, and a porch or patio.
Eighty percent of poor households have air conditioning. By contrast, in 1970, only 36 percent of the entire U.S. population enjoyed air conditioning.
Only 6 percent of poor households are over crowded; two-thirds have more than two rooms per person.
The typical poor American has more living space than the average individual living in Paris, Lon don, Vienna, Athens, and other cities throughout Europe. (These comparisons are to the average citizens in foreign countries, not to those classified as poor.)
Poor Americans have nearly three times the living space of average urban citizens in middle-income countries such as Mexico and Turkey. Poor American households have seven times more housing space per person than the general urban population of very-low-income countries such as India and China.
Nearly three-quarters of poor households own a car; 31 percent own two or more cars.
Ninety-seven percent of poor households have a color television; over half own two or more color televisions.
Seventy-eight percent have a VCR or DVD player; 62 percent have cable or satellite TV reception.
Eighty-nine percent own microwave ovens, more than half have a stereo, and a more than a third have an automatic dishwasher.
The principal nutrition-related health problem among the poor, as with the general U.S. population, stems from the overconsumption, not underconsumption, of food. While overweight and obesity are prevalent problems throughout the U.S. population, they are found most frequently among poor adults.
Overall, the typical American defined as poor by the government has a car, air conditioning, a refrigerator, a stove, a clothes washer and dryer, and a microwave. He has two color televisions, cable or satellite TV reception, a VCR or DVD player, and a stereo. He is able to obtain medical care. His home is in good repair and is not overcrowded. By his own report, his family is not hungry, and he had sufficient funds in the past year to meet his family's essential needs. While this individual's life is not opulent, it is equally far from the popular images of dire poverty conveyed by the press, liberal activists, and politicians.
Steve, I am no expert, and there may be some truth in the statements you quoted, but the Heritage Foundation is certainly a biased source for such things. They have an agenda to define away poverty. I would think more of your "evidence" if it were from a source with a more mid-stream, impartial (or at least bipartisan) point of view.
the Heritage Foundation is certainly a biased source for such things.
I'm not familiar with them. I believe the data used is from the U.S. Census though. Of course it could be presented in a distorted way I suppose.
But Census poverty figures have come under attack from other sources I've read because no add-back is made for free health care, tax credits for having kids, food stamps, etc. So, you can have a person making $12K a year but living rent free, getting food stamps, free health care, a tax refund check each year, possible utility subsidies, and none of those other things are factored in determining whether or not they are "poor".
I was just saying, following on my anecdotal experiences, that the "disadvantaged" are often much less disadvantaged than we think, and they are relatively well off compared to their counterparts (even middle class) in other nations.
So I reject the notion that "poor" kids can't do better in school, or on a TAKS test, because they don't have a high enough standard of living. I think it's more of an institutional/social problem than an economic problem that plagues low achievers.
POOR just like WEALTHY/ RICH has many stratas of meaning
you can have the working poor and the destitute, homeless vs migrant
there are thousand shades of blue--and almost as many variations of "poor"...
and economic/institutional/social--they are all intertwined and inter-related as far as their impact on low achieving students
and as a teacher I know that you can have under-performing students from upper-middle class homes as well as poverty-line ones...have never really taught super wealthy students but imagine there are underperformers there when I consider George W. Bush's performance and reputation as a student
I'm not familiar with them. I believe the data used is from the U.S. Census though. Of course it could be presented in a distorted way I suppose.
But Census poverty figures have come under attack from other sources I've read because no add-back is made for free health care, tax credits for having kids, food stamps, etc. So, you can have a person making $12K a year but living rent free, getting food stamps, free health care, a tax refund check each year, possible utility subsidies, and none of those other things are factored in determining whether or not they are "poor".
I was just saying, following on my anecdotal experiences, that the "disadvantaged" are often much less disadvantaged than we think, and they are relatively well off compared to their counterparts (even middle class) in other nations.
So I reject the notion that "poor" kids can't do better in school, or on a TAKS test, because they don't have a high enough standard of living. I think it's more of an institutional/social problem than an economic problem that plagues low achievers.
Steve
The Heritage Foundation is a conservative think tank. They possess a particular political agenda, and frequently take out of context the statistics in their articles to portray a particular bias, because they have an invested interest in doing so.
For example, while the Heritage Foundation cites 2005 US Census Bureau numbers, you will notice a tricky and purposely confusing cross-definition of "poverty" and "poor", which are implied to mean the same thing in the article, but actually do not mean the same thing in terms of the US Census Bureau. Because "poverty" defines a particular income line, where as poor can mean whatever the Heritage Foundation wants it to mean.
Additionally, there are literally hundreds of contextual and factual inaccuracies in Heritage Foundation studies. For instance, the article asserts that a child who is one inch taller and ten pounds heaver than a WWII counterpart ought to be considered "supernourished". In actuality, there are both evolutionary and biological reasons for this. The biological reasons can be deducted from the poor quality of the meats that poor children eat, which often contain highly concentrated growth chemicals used to propel young livestock and cattle to maturity quicker for slaughter. Such things have had medically negative consequences extended over the long term that those who can afford healthier diets do not face. Also, consider that a growth rate of 1 inch over 70 years would actually be below the evolutionary average.
Another example, would be to consider the fact that there are millions of people who are counted among those living below the poverty line because of their age (college students, live-ins, disability, etc.) who would classify under the US Census Bureau's survey for ownership as a result of having access to. The US Census Bureau qualifies things by frequency, not by receipt ownership. So in this instance, if you live in a place where there is access to a microwave, you all own a microwave, individually, even if there is only one. It is a tremendously flawed counting, which is why the Heritage Foundation relies on it so heavily. In the same way that someone can show up on the Census Bureau six times if they happen to be in six different places at the right time, and declare a majority residency.
There are literally books written refuting studies like this.
If you read the article, you can go line by line and see the things taken out of context. For instance, the article claims that 2/3rds of "poor children" come from one parent homes, but this is because the Heritage Foundation simultaneously and conveniently utilized the divorce statistic without reducing the income necessity of a single-parent family. This is because the Heritage Foundation's political interest drives them to push sanctity of marriage talking points.
Look: On the internet, it is possible to find literally any sort of information to reinforce one's viewpoint. There are as many think tanks that have articles like these from the opposing point of view.
Your opinions seems to be that people put themselves in their own situation because they are simply unwilling to get themselves out of that situation. I couldn't disagree more. I generally feel that those that have that sort of view on people lack empathy because they have not had to deal with any particular unexpected hardship and because they have not been fortunate enough to experience a diverse range of people and circumstances.
I can tell you that, that is simply not the case. Poor people do not want to be poor, and poor people are living generally far below the circumstances that The Heritage Foundation prescribes.
I also think that the social factors are connected to economic ones. Minorities are poorer for a reason, and also subject to the social problems you've referenced. There is a reason for this. And it is not because minorities simply don't want to work as hard. There was that whole institution of slavery thing that set our black friends back by a couple of centuries, which has had a significant impact on the black family's ability to make money, create stability, and yes, pass standardized tests in school. It is connected.
I would suggest in the future that instead of doing a "quick google search" you might want to do "actual research". That will give you a less bias, more informed opinion.
Last edited by AutumnFOG; 05-01-2010 at 11:33 PM..
But Census poverty figures have come under attack from other sources I've read because no add-back is made for free health care, tax credits for having kids, food stamps, etc. So, you can have a person making $12K a year but living rent free, getting food stamps, free health care, a tax refund check each year, possible utility subsidies, and none of those other things are factored in determining whether or not they are "poor".
Steve
Actually, they are. They get those things because they make $12K a year. They don't make $12K a year so that they can get those things. And that is the fundamental difference between the way your point of view and the other point of view is thinking.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $53,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 1.5 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
