Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 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.
If what your saying is true, adults then shouldn't be selfish and bring kids into the world they can't bring up in a responsible manner. Yes?
This veers off topic a bit but there is a thread saying the same thing and that poster got beat to death by PARENTS enraged at a supposed "sense of entitlement" of children and society telling them they should not have kids if they can't educate them. It's not a black thing, poor thing, it's a PARENT thing in some cases.
I can't think of an exception to this, it's even true for small cities, like mine, which only has 50,000 people, so my question is, why?
Lots of reasons. Inner city schools get less funding. More single parent families in inner city neighborhoods, with the single parent stretched too thin. More negative influences in the environment, making it hard for good kids to stay on track. High teacher turnover in some schools.
However, the inner city highschool in Seattle has a very impressive variety of high-level courses. They had an introduction to law course when I lived there. The best public highschools in the city didn't have anything like that. So you never know. There can be pleasant surprises.
Lots of reasons. Inner city schools get less funding. More single parent families in inner city neighborhoods, with the single parent stretched too thin. More negative influences in the environment, making it hard for good kids to stay on track. High teacher turnover in some schools.
However, the inner city highschool in Seattle has a very impressive variety of high-level courses. They had an introduction to law course when I lived there. The best public highschools in the city didn't have anything like that. So you never know. There can be pleasant surprises.
No. While it occurs some places, the opposite occurs other places.
Quote:
Among the schools GAO reviewed, differences in per-pupil spending between inner city and suburban schools varied across metropolitan areas, with inner city schools spending more in some metropolitan areas and suburban schools spending more in other areas. The inner city schools that GAO examined generally spent more per pupil than suburban schools in Boston, Chicago, and St. Louis, while in Fort Worth and New York the suburban schools in GAO's study almost always spent more per pupil than the inner city schools. In Denver and Oakland, spending differences between the selected inner city and suburban schools were mixed. In general, higher per-pupil expenditures at any given school were explained primarily by higher staff salaries regardless of whether the school was an inner city or suburban school. Two other explanatory factors were student-teacher ratios and ratios of students to student support staff, such as guidance counselors, nurses, and librarians.
What is true is that students in high-risk inner city schools need more support (translated, more paid staff). They also have less volunteer parental monetary and time donations. That last sentence is a BIG factor in student success.
__________________
When I post in bold red that is moderator action and, per the TOS, can only be discussed through Direct Message.
This veers off topic a bit but there is a thread saying the same thing and that poster got beat to death by PARENTS enraged at a supposed "sense of entitlement" of children and society telling them they should not have kids if they can't educate them. It's not a black thing, poor thing, it's a PARENT thing in some cases.
Seems a common reaction from parents that don't like to be told the reality that their kids actions juuuuust might have much to do with their parenting skills. In a society where responsibility is often a forgotten word, I suppose we shouldn't be surprised.
It shouldn't be, though. Just because a school serves poor children doesn't mean that it should be a "poor" school. That is what all the equity funding lawsuits were all about a while back. Much of the current red tape is an unwanted byproduct of the subsequent attempts at equalization of funding among schools in different areas. Meanwhile, the disparities between schools continue to worsen as the schools that serve the poor are themselves further impoverished by punitive measures as a consequence for low achievement. If anyone wanted to ensure that the achievement gap endures, they couldn't easily come up with a better scheme.
But it's going to be. Yes, funding coming from the state gives schools in poor areas more operating budget but that doesn't replace crumbling infrastructure and outdated equipment. Infrastructure and equipment come out of the local budget (at least they do here in Michigan). So while you can pay your teachers the same as a better district they will be teaching in outdated classrooms with minimal equipment.
When I taught at the charter school I didn't have a lab to do labs in and ended up spending $3000 of my own money over two years on labs and classroom supplies like printer paper because the school had no budget for labs and each teacher was given one box of paper per semester. At one point I was teaching without books for two classes and had to print everything I used. I couldn't even get them to buy me a $100 eye wash station. The got me a 16 oz squirt bottle instead. That operating budget from the state is not enough to overcome a lack of funding for basics.
If what your saying is true, adults then shouldn't be selfish and bring kids into the world they can't bring up in a responsible manner. Yes?
I wonder how much we could improve the lives of children and our education system if we sterilized every 12 year old and then allowed them to petition the state for a free reversal once they turned 25 if they could show they were stable and ready to raise children? You need a license to drive a car yet any idiot can have and raise a child. To become a teacher, you have to jump through flaming hoops to show you're fit for the job but any one who wants to can have a child and raise that child as they see fit.
It actually has little to do with parents *valuing* education. They often do value it, but don't have the skills or the time to help their children succeed especially if they did not succeed in school themselves.
The fact is that poor children start with a language gap in infancy.
So, what is needed is infant intervention to help parents learn how to talk to their children in engaging ways. For poor parents who are working lots of hours, this can be extremely difficult.
Quality of day care is an issue as well. The one form of day care that has been found to be consistently lacking is the one poor people are most likely to use. Kith and kin care. Employing friends and relatives with no training in child development to care for your children. Often these friends and relatives are simply baby sitters keeping the child safe, dry and fed but little more. Children need stimulation. They need to be talked to and read to and to participate in activities that help them learn. A friend or relative may view child care as a favor rather than a job to be done well.
What schools can do is bring back tracking. When you put a child who doesn't even know what a book is in the same class as a child who already reads, the education of both children will end up lacking. There will be a rush to push the lagging child ahead when they need time while the child who is ahead will languish while their less able peer tries to catch up. Children should be tested for entry into school and every year thereafter for placement on the correct track. A track that will best suit them and their learning. We're so afraid to say that one child knows more than another that we cheat them all. Sorry people but children are born with different capabilities and some are limited or pushed forward by their parents. This is reality and we'd do well to just accept that different kids have different educational needs and create tracks where each child can get an education that best suits them.
I wonder how much we could improve the lives of children and our education system if we sterilized every 12 year old and then allowed them to petition the state for a free reversal once they turned 25 if they could show they were stable and ready to raise children? You need a license to drive a car yet any idiot can have and raise a child. To become a teacher, you have to jump through flaming hoops to show you're fit for the job but any one who wants to can have a child and raise that child as they see fit.
Great point and idea. I've thought about it in those same terms and certainly makes sense to me. Of course we would be considered meanies/controlling by some but I consider it to be coming from a very caring place to protect kids from "parents" who are unable/unwilling/unfit to take on the true responsibility of being parents.
Volunteer in an inner city school for a few months and just observe the students as you volunteer.
Many of these children need a lot more than "enrichment".
We got a kindergartner this year that needs to be taught how to eat with a spoon and how to property go to the bathroom. Ponder that one.
Then teach that child to eat with a spoon and use the lavatory.We always had kids in ALL schools who needed extra attention due to family issues.
I live in a rural poor area, yes, teenagers will work potato harvest to afford clothes for the school year. I think the big difference where I am, as opposed to the inner city, people are not as segregated by class. One can attend a local church and attend with the local lawyer and yes you have the local felon in the same church. I do believe the segregation of the classes contribute to the problems. Let's face it if a rich parent is neglectful they have more resources to deal with the neglect IE nanny, boarding school, etc.
I am not a teacher, I worked at Job Corps. I have a difficult time believing children, who are a product of their environment, are to blame for their plight. I have difficulty believing a certain "group" of people should simply not reproduce and that will solve The United States problems. We have always had poor people, we have had problems with poor people breeding but still manage to blame the individual when it's a community and societal issue.
Of course I have been accused at looking at life through rose colored glasses.
Great point and idea. I've thought about it in those same terms and certainly makes sense to me. Of course we would be considered meanies/controlling by some but I consider it to be coming from a very caring place to protect kids from "parents" who are unable/unwilling/unfit to take on the true responsibility of being parents.
Yes, we'd be told we're taking away someone's RIGHT to procreate. It should be children who have the right to parents who are grown ups who can care for them. With a pregnant 19 year old in the house right now I often think how much better off this child's life could have been if she'd at least waited until she was out of college. Unfortunately, he starts out life with the odds stacked against him. Neither parent has completed their education and have jobs that pay little better than minimum wage. How many more of our kids would finish school and develop careers if they didn't have the option of having kids before 25?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 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 2 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.
