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.
The crucial distinction Kohl asks us to make is between can’t and won’t. Teachers and school officials usually assume that a child who doesn’t learn is unable to, but Kohl maintains that children often decide not to learn particular subjects, or from particular people, or in particular settings. He writes, “I have encountered willed not-learning throughout my thirty years of teaching and believe that such not-learning is often and disastrously mistaken for failure to learn or inability to learn.”
As for peer pressure....well, I can't help you if you insist on being wrong and live in fear. Have faith in your parenting and your child will do very well. If you are that insistent that your own child will succumb to drugs and crime and you are not in control, than you shouldn't be a parent. Your hypothesis is wrong also...drugs are everywhere. Rich kids have better access to it as a matter of fact. As a nurse, I can tell you that most overdoses we see aren't coming from low income kids. They're coming from suburban middle-upper middle class and wealthy homes. Addiction can happen anywhere and schools are the last place medical staff looks to blame when we see them.
Again, have faith in your parenting. Your attitude toward kids in poor schools is dangerous in that it perpetuates an incorrect stereotype which isn't good for you or your kids....and it's unfair to poor kids.
We'll just have to agree to disagree.
Peer environment for kids is huge. Parenting is important, no doubt. And yes drugs are everywhere. But the extent to which drugs and crime and that whole lifestyle is accepted, normalized, and perpetuated in 'ghetto' communities (mind you, not just poor! but the really bad dangerous places) cannot be compared to a suburban kid being offered coke at a house party. These are just wholly different situations, mindsets, and extents of pressure. It's like throwing a person who is a beginner swimmer into a calm shallow pool as opposed to a raging river. He could 'technically' drown OR survive in either - but it's much more likely that he'll manage to survive in the pool, and most likely die in the river - and 'having faith' in his swimming abilities will not do much good. Kids and teenagers are 'beginners' when it comes to life choices and decisions. Their frontal lobes aren't yet capable of sufficient foresight and proper decision making in difficult situations. Parents should, and do, teach and support, but that final decision will still be up to the child, and if they're up against crushing unrelenting waves they'll be much more likely to succumb. Personality is part of it too, and it also can only be partly mitigated, not changed drastically, by parenting. An emotionally strong child may be able to resist - but not all are emotionally strong.
If parental influence was the end-all, the 'ghetto communities' would not be as prevalent as they are now. That's because, aside from the worse of abusive neglectful parents, most of the parents in these communities do NOT want to see their kids on drugs or shot in gangs. Many of these kids are told at home to stay away from that lifestyle. And yet the vast majority ends up succumbing and repeating the cycle - barring the very few extremely strong-spirited, motivated and fortunate ones. Read Jonathan Kozol for a good description of what exactly goes on with kids 'behind the scenes' in these communities, and how they and their families are often floundering to resist.
We'll just have to agree to disagree.
Peer environment for kids is huge. Parenting is important, no doubt. And yes drugs are everywhere. But the extent to which drugs and crime and that whole lifestyle is accepted, normalized, and perpetuated in 'ghetto' communities (mind you, not just poor! but the really bad dangerous places) cannot be compared to a suburban kid being offered coke at a house party. These are just wholly different situations, mindsets, and extents of pressure. It's like throwing a person who is a beginner swimmer into a calm shallow pool as opposed to a raging river. He could 'technically' drown OR survive in either - but it's much more likely that he'll manage to survive in the pool, and most likely die in the river - and 'having faith' in his swimming abilities will not do much good. Kids and teenagers are 'beginners' when it comes to life choices and decisions. Their frontal lobes aren't yet capable of sufficient foresight and proper decision making in difficult situations. Parents should, and do, teach and support, but that final decision will still be up to the child, and if they're up against crushing unrelenting waves they'll be much more likely to succumb. Personality is part of it too, and it also can only be partly mitigated, not changed drastically, by parenting. An emotionally strong child may be able to resist - but not all are emotionally strong.
If parental influence was the end-all, the 'ghetto communities' would not be as prevalent as they are now. That's because, aside from the worse of abusive neglectful parents, most of the parents in these communities do NOT want to see their kids on drugs or shot in gangs. Many of these kids are told at home to stay away from that lifestyle. And yet the vast majority ends up succumbing and repeating the cycle - barring the very few extremely strong-spirited, motivated and fortunate ones. Read Jonathan Kozol for a good description of what exactly goes on with kids 'behind the scenes' in these communities, and how they and their families are often floundering to resist.
The bold is completely wrong. Peer pressure is far more difficult to deal with among wealthy kids than it is poor kids. As for parents in "ghetto communities" (and shame on your snobbish self for using that term), those parents who don't want to see their kids go the wrong way, but it happens, simply don't have the resources, education and knowledge to see their kids rise above what's out there. Just like the wealthy mom who complains about her child spending too much money on things, yet gives her kid a credit card; some parents will complain about their kid turning to gangs after they let their kids stay out after midnight on a school night.
Kozol wrote about the inequality that hurts poor kids - an inequality poor kids don't have control over. Your attitude continues that because of your fear to associate with those kids and your insistence that they are doomed. Maybe you should talk to some people in those communities rather than assuming you know everything about inner cities because you read a book about them. You believe the vast majority turn to gangs??? Wow, just wow.
The bold is completely wrong. Peer pressure is far more difficult to deal with among wealthy kids than it is poor kids. As for parents in "ghetto communities" (and shame on your snobbish self for using that term), those parents who don't want to see their kids go the wrong way, but it happens, simply don't have the resources, education and knowledge to see their kids rise above what's out there. Just like the wealthy mom who complains about her child spending too much money on things, yet gives her kid a credit card; some parents will complain about their kid turning to gangs after they let their kids stay out after midnight on a school night.
Kozol wrote about the inequality that hurts poor kids - an inequality poor kids don't have control over. Your attitude continues that because of your fear to associate with those kids and your insistence that they are doomed. Maybe you should talk to some people in those communities rather than assuming you know everything about inner cities because you read a book about them. You believe the vast majority turn to gangs??? Wow, just wow.
You're contradicting yourself.
The bolded pretty much reinforces what I'm saying. Letting a kid stay out past midnight shouldn't be an automatic ticket into gangs; and a suburban middle class parent can generally let a kid stay out at night with no ill results. And technically, a kid from a rich family could just as easily get out and join a gang or similar if they were so inclined - so why are the statistics so different? I don't believe that it's because the kid, or their family, are so special - teens are teens everywhere. It's because the environment around them is different. And it's not just because THEY and their families have money and care about education. It's because the vast majority of their community, neighbours, friends, peers do too.
Without that social influence, even the best kids and families are left like survivors on a raft, they may make it through unscathed but the odds are against them.
Why don't the poor kids have control over the inequality? It's because it's all around them, it permeates their life. Schools and teachers aren't enough to change it. The reason I mentioned Kozol is because he writes about some cases of 'good' inner city schools and programs, dedicated teachers, bright kids, and good families who want to break the cycle. He describes how it often 'works' through elementary school. But by middle, and certainly by high school, is where the majority get weeded out. How kids, especially boys, get approached by adult drug dealers in the streets and halls of their buildings; how they're pushed, often violently threatened, into gang initiations. It takes an extremely strong, lucky kid to bypass all that. He talks about how basically the kids who end up making it out are the ones whose families manage to physically get them out of these neighbourhoods and schools. So going back to the topic of schools, they're just not enough; neither are the parents in many cases. Those entire communities would need to change, and drastically, in order to expect change.
I didn't say the majority turn to gangs btw; but I did say the vast majority end up perpetuating the cycle of poverty, lack of education, and all that comes with it, which they do.
The bolded pretty much reinforces what I'm saying. Letting a kid stay out past midnight shouldn't be an automatic ticket into gangs; and a suburban middle class parent can generally let a kid stay out at night with no ill results. And technically, a kid from a rich family could just as easily get out and join a gang or similar if they were so inclined - so why are the statistics so different? I don't believe that it's because the kid, or their family, are so special - teens are teens everywhere. It's because the environment around them is different. And it's not just because THEY and their families have money and care about education. It's because the vast majority of their community, neighbours, friends, peers do too.
Without that social influence, even the best kids and families are left like survivors on a raft, they may make it through unscathed but the odds are against them.
Why don't the poor kids have control over the inequality? It's because it's all around them, it permeates their life. Schools and teachers aren't enough to change it. The reason I mentioned Kozol is because he writes about some cases of 'good' inner city schools and programs, dedicated teachers, bright kids, and good families who want to break the cycle. He describes how it often 'works' through elementary school. But by middle, and certainly by high school, is where the majority get weeded out. How kids, especially boys, get approached by adult drug dealers in the streets and halls of their buildings; how they're pushed, often violently threatened, into gang initiations. It takes an extremely strong, lucky kid to bypass all that. He talks about how basically the kids who end up making it out are the ones whose families manage to physically get them out of these neighbourhoods and schools. So going back to the topic of schools, they're just not enough; neither are the parents in many cases. Those entire communities would need to change, and drastically, in order to expect change.
I didn't say the majority turn to gangs btw; but I did say the vast majority end up perpetuating the cycle of poverty, lack of education, and all that comes with it, which they do.
I'm not contradicting myself. You are assuming that all poor parents in inner cities let their kids out past midnight which IS NOT the case.
Not only do kids not have control over inequality, neither do most of the citizens that live there. Where we are, factories that once housed tons of middle class jobs (that allowed men to own a home and have a stay at home wife and two kids at one time btw) are falling apart and neglected. The owners have long fled and bailed on maintaining their property. So not only are the jobs not there, the neighborhood is blighted. Because of this, outsiders look down on those places and justify not sending funding toward those areas. You fall into that category because all you've done is read a book by a wealthy man who went and found the worst case scenarios, site statistics that are mostly exaggerated and flat out made up, and rely on your fearful prejudices rather than go out and MEET people in the inner city.
I'm not contradicting myself. You are assuming that all poor parents in inner cities let their kids out past midnight which IS NOT the case.
Not only do kids not have control over inequality, neither do most of the citizens that live there. Where we are, factories that once housed tons of middle class jobs (that allowed men to own a home and have a stay at home wife and two kids at one time btw) are falling apart and neglected. The owners have long fled and bailed on maintaining their property. So not only are the jobs not there, the neighborhood is blighted. Because of this, outsiders look down on those places and justify not sending funding toward those areas. You fall into that category because all you've done is read a book by a wealthy man who went and found the worst case scenarios, site statistics that are mostly exaggerated and flat out made up, and rely on your fearful prejudices rather than go out and MEET people in the inner city.
LOL re bolded, nowhere did I state that; YOU are the one that first brought this up.
I would think many people commenting on this thread haven't gone out and 'met' people in the inner city; I wasn't aware that was a prerequisite to responding.
FWIW, I'm not against funding being sent to these places. What I am saying is that school funding alone will not be enough to turn these neighborhoods around unless many other drastic changes take place at the same time - jobs, housing, and strict crime control among them. As you can see I'm agreeing with most of your points, so I don't know why you keep implying that I am some kind of sadistic snob single-handedly keeping funding away from poor people.
Also fwiw, in case you've gotten the impression that I'm some spoiled rich brat born with a silver spoon in my mouth, that couldn't be further from the truth. While I'm fortunate enough not to have lived in an extremely 'bad' neighborhood, I went through two immigrations with my parents as a child from a second-world country, and we spent quite a number of years struggling to get on our feet and getting by with very little. However, everyone in my family was highly educated, and I was brought up with a focus on education, as is the case for many immigrant families I see from many parts of the world.
LOL re bolded, nowhere did I state that; YOU are the one that first brought this up.
I would think many people commenting on this thread haven't gone out and 'met' people in the inner city; I wasn't aware that was a prerequisite to responding.
FWIW, I'm not against funding being sent to these places. What I am saying is that school funding alone will not be enough to turn these neighborhoods around unless many other drastic changes take place at the same time - jobs, housing, and strict crime control among them. As you can see I'm agreeing with most of your points, so I don't know why you keep implying that I am some kind of sadistic snob single-handedly keeping funding away from poor people.
Also fwiw, in case you've gotten the impression that I'm some spoiled rich brat born with a silver spoon in my mouth, that couldn't be further from the truth. While I'm fortunate enough not to have lived in an extremely 'bad' neighborhood, I went through two immigrations with my parents as a child from a second-world country, and we spent quite a number of years struggling to get on our feet and getting by with very little. However, everyone in my family was highly educated, and I was brought up with a focus on education, as is the case for many immigrant families I see from many parts of the world.
You went off about poor kids and peer pressure and the majority of them being doomed. There are plenty of kids in my son's high school who are also the children of immigrants who stress education. It's a good thing you weren't judged the way you are judging them because of where they go to school. I never got the impression you were a spoiled brat. I figured you are either a wannabe snob or someone who lets fear dictate their lives (it's called prejudice in this case). After your last post, it actually sounds like you forgot where you came from, though.
Nonsense. Look at the Ronald McNair academy. Excellent school, urban, predominantly black or Hispanic, predominately poor.
Do you think you could take any randomly selected group of inner city kids and put them in that school and get the same results, or do you think they get such good results because the students are preselected by the drive they or their parents have to see them succeed?
It is 39% asian, 17% black, 21% Hispanic, 20% white, 3% other.
When you count asian as minority, it skews the results a bit.
It does have 47% economically disadvantage (free or reduced lunch)
While Niche does not say it, this is a magnet school. General admittance is based on a consensus of PSAT scores, academic performance from the 6th through 8th grades, extracurricular activities, and teacher recommendations. With the primary goal of diversity through affirmative action, the school's enrollment is based on a quota of 25% White, 25% Black, 25% Hispanic, and 25% Other (mostly Asian). It's not just taking kids from the neighborhood and pulling them up.
I read that article and it was a little biased. The liberals and the New York Times never want to admit that much of the problem at schools are race, IQ and economic based. They believe that everyone is wonderful and with the right teachers everyone can be a genius and run a company or be a doctor. The reality is much different. Ever read Animal Farm?
What they do not say is the successful schools in Harlem have a hand picked student body in many cases and are not the worst of the worst I described in my original posting.
So how exactly do you explain lower IQ's in urban areas? Lead in the paint or water? Only dumb people live in the city? Certain races who are more likely to live in the city naturally have lower IQs?
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.
