It’s also a wonderful arrangement for the kids (and parents) who qualify (in all the myriad of ways) to go to that school.
They get an education unmarred by continual disruption by the emotionally-disregulated and unslowed by the continual drag of the less-abled. Whether those problems are inherent in the problem kid or are the result of a good kid trapped in a ghastly home situation is immaterial from the POV of the normal / typical kids and their normal / typical parents.
IMO the public schools do a grave disservice to most of their kids by trying too hard to “mainstream” kids that simply can’t cope with that.
Sometimes public schools do this because they’re forced by laws, other times forced by pedagogic ideology, and other times by simple budget realities. If they don’t have the money to offer dedicated 1-on-1 teaching to the problematic, the problematic have to be taught in a group setting. Which often amounts to turning them loose on the general student populace and damn the consequences.
Perhaps my small town is the exception, but here we have a facility dedicated to the teaching of the problematic/special needs/special education kids. Yes, it costs a ton of money (and, yes, we have a vocal minority who regularly complain about it), but I believe that it’s well worth it.
The first is a stat by the dept of education. 13% is high, certainly, but probably about half of those have mental difficulties that couldn’t be overcome with any amount of education. Around 7% of the population has a lower than 80 IQ and probably cannot become functionally literate.
The second is a statement by the interviewer about what they say an author says. The author doesn’t make that statement in the interview, but rather states that 75-80% of kids are going to learn to read if you just give them books.
The statement is that 20% of adults may be functionally illiterate, but it does not seem to be based on any actual statistical data, certainly not cited in the piece
Not sure how that somehow happens. If 13% of 17 year olds are functionally illiterate, then how do 7% more people forget how to read when they graduate?
As I said, your cites do show a problem that need to be addressed, however, they do not back @Velocity’s claim that 17% of high school graduates cannot read.
You asked what the alternative to parents giving their children advantages above others is, so I answered that the alternative to them getting those advantages would be public school.
I agree that public school is, or at least should be, a meritocracy, and you’ve just pointed out why conservatives reject both public school and meritocracy.
Yes, and if they are lucky enough to be born into a well off family, then they don’t need to be smarter or more talented than average to have a better lifestyle than others.
The disparity is in the advantages that they are given by the position they start from. There will always be disparity in outcome based on someone’s talents and efforts, and those are and should be rewarded. This talk of communism is purely strawman. What incentive is there for someone who sees that no matter how much smarter and hard working they are, they will never catch up with a lazy dullard who starts at the finish line?
If you are trying to get into an ivy league or other high profile school, sure. But that doesn’t mean that you can’t get into your state college.
It means that alleviating generational poverty is the best way of improving the education of our youth.
As @DemonTree says, you did miss the point a bit. To a fundamentalist, teaching their child about evolution is exactly the same as teaching a child from a secular family that they will go to hell if they do not follow the teachings of their specific theology.
I think that what @DemonTree was trying to say is that fundamentalists and alt-right are irrational paranoid control freaks.
If that’s not what @DemonTree was getting at with the little jab, then @DemonTree is free to explain further why @DemonTree thinks that there is any similarity there.
That’s actually the problem with private schools. Not only are the teachers not union, but the parents have much more influence. A large donor at a private school is going to have enough leverage to get a teacher fired rather than acknowledge their own child’s failings.
I’ve long opined that the entire point of an impoverished class is to threaten the middle class to stay in line. It’s an example to point to and say, “You don’t want to end up like them, do you?” Not that following the rules and toeing the line will guarantee that you won’t end up impoverished.
I think that the people who would sit on their asses and do nothing whatsoever are those who claim that everyone else will.
Except for public schools in the suburbs. I wasn’t just raised a conservative by my parents. My teachers and everyone else in my public school were quite conservative, and certainly made quite a bit of propaganda towards conservative values.
Religious, not quite so much. Most were fairly openly religious, but there was not much in the way of proselytizing, at least. In biology, when we were being taught evolution, my teacher started with a speech about how this is what the science says, and if someone has different beliefs, they should be respected.
There’s a wide gulf between poverty and fame and fortune. Not being at risk of falling into abject poverty is not the same thing as not earning rewards for hard work or talent.
Please don’t mistake my explaining the situation with my cheerleading for it.
I totally agree that the right way is as your local town does it.
Spend whatever it takes to give the normal/typical kids their individually best possible education to maximize their potential unhindered by the difficult kids. AND spend whatever it takes to give the difficult kids whatever they need to maximize their potential also.
While we’re at it, AND spend whatever it takes to give the “gifted” kids whatever they need to maximize their potential too.
It’s only either/or when someone decides up front to oppose quality education for all on doctrinal grounds. Whether that doctrine is one of private greed or based on ancient religious animus to all forms of knowledge is really immaterial to the outcome.
Oh, I most certainly did not assume that you were in favor of it! In fact, I totally agree with your earlier post.
But you are correct in stating that many school districts have neither the budget, resources, or support to do things in such a manner that all students receive the best possible education.
Some of them, I expect, would do it for the fame. Some of them, I expect, would do it for the joy of testing their own best abilities against those of others.
And if some decided that, as long as they and their families wouldn’t be stuck in abject poverty if they chose not to risk lifetime physical damage – from concussion or ruined ligaments or whatever – for the amusement of others: I don’t think that would be an overall loss to society as a whole. They might well do something else useful.
People who set up their own businesses now sometimes do so despite the risk of winding up povertystricken to the point of being homeless. I suspect that the increased number of people who would start businesses if they had a genuine safety net in case of the business failing would exceed the number who wouldn’t start them because they only stood a chance of becoming moderately rich, instead of a chance of becoming extremely so while others (and possibly themselves) wound up out on the street.
But we’re not seeing the effect of widespread unemployment on various communities combined with a certainty of decent housing, proper healthcare, a healthy diet and a good education both of one’s choice, and enough left over to, say, be able to afford a ticket to that game with whatever star or semistar athletes genuinely wanted to play it. We’re seeing the results of widespread unemployment in situations in which unemployment means both deprivation and denial of respect.
I’ve certainly run into people who say, basically, ‘of course I wouldn’t, I’m not like that. But all those other people would!’ Some of them are certainly hard workers in the current situation, at work they chose and seem to overall enjoy.
Adults who drop out of school before age 17. Adults who immigrate here who can read, but not English.
Adults who had a really poor reading skill when they graduated HS but never use it, so it gets worse. The Average American reads one book a year. Many have not read a book since getting out of school.
The numbers are close enough and I only grabbed a few cites. You may quibble on 17% all you want but the exact number is not important. What is important is that too fucking many kids get out of HS without decent reading skills.
Why is garbage pickup better in richer neighbourhoods? Is it not all done by the same local authority? In the UK I have never noticed any difference whether I was living in a rich or poor area.
Re the schools, @DrDeth posted a bunch of research showing private schools are no better than public schools once parental income is factored out. Are some public schools really significantly better than others or does this factor explain most of the disparities there, too?
Those would also not be people that graduated high school not knowing how to read.
It was not the 13-17% that I was quibbling on, in fact, I pointed this out in my first post. What I was contesting was that these people graduated from high school functionally illiterate.
And mentally disabled people also do graduate from high school with a special diploma, so I don’t know how they are figured into the estimation that @Velocity threw out.
Agreed, but that’s not what I was contesting about @Velocity’s claim either.
It’s done by city, or it’s paid for by the homeowner. There are cities that have bigger budgets than others, and they can prioritize certain areas over others.
Do note that the UK is a bit more “socialist” than the US is.
Yes, absolutely. But, you have to be able to afford to live in the neighborhoods that those schools serve. The school district I live in is okay-ish, but the district some of my friends live in are ranked top in the state. My house is a bit bigger then theirs is, and it cost about a third the price.
I’d be interested to see what you thought of the rest of @LSLGuy’s post. If a school puts students of wildly varying capability into the same classroom due to a lack of budget for having more granular instruction, is that still a “Yes, this”?
If you are gonna obsess about proving a poster is wrong in the small details, while he is right in the big picture, then there is no use debating with you. I do not care if his % is off by a few points.
Here in New York City, residential garbage pickup is handled, citywide, by the New York City Department of Sanitation.
The streets of my relatively affluent Brooklyn neighborhood are about as clean and free of trash as is possible in a city of nine million people. The streets of the Brooklyn neighborhood of (for example) Brownsville are very much not clean and free of trash.
Even at the federal level, the delivery of government services varies significantly, pretty much in line with the income level and ethnic makeup of neighborhoods.
For example, one of my brothers lives in a Brooklyn neighborhood with a low income level and ibn which about 95% of the residents are Black (I’m not making that up, it’s a reasonably accurate number that I checked at one time, can’t quite remember how, but it was NYC neighborhoods by zip code, something like that).
He can’t get his mail delivered. It simply doesn’t arrive. Whereas I have no problems whatsoever with mail delivery. But his mail never shows up. And it’s a problem – he’s a freelancer in the film and video business, and apparently plenty of production companies still pay by mailing paper checks. Which never show up in his mailbox. And he’s investigated this – it’s a known issue where he lives. Even his congressperson got involved. Didn’t help.
The school system seems to work pretty much the same way.
Some public schools are significantly better than others. At least here where I live, that’s an undeniable and glaringly obvious fact. I think it’s far too easy to say that the difference in educational outcomes is due to parental income. I think that’s a lazy excuse.
I think there are relatively few people who would object to this. What most object to is the (perceived) attempt to persuade their own children to believe different things, things their parents may not approve of.
No I didn’t. I asked what the alternative to meritocracy was.
That’s because you don’t have a perfect meritocracy, and such may well not be achievable. But again I ask: what is the alternative to meritocracy?
That’s not the same disparity I was talking about.
If they can do better - even much better - than where they started, there is still an incentive to work hard, even if we can never ensure a completely level playing field. That doesn’t mean we shouldn’t do our best to do so, of course.
But it also means we can’t necessarily expect education to do that. Maybe Canadian schools get better results because Canada has a better safety net, and more employment protections, not because of any differences in the schools themselves.
If you wouldn’t want your kid taught things you consider wrong or immoral, why would you expect a religious parent to accept this? Saying ‘but my morals are the right ones’ is going to convince exactly nobody who does not already agree with you.
I’m not arguing with that. We can have a minimum standard for everyone, and still reward people for their talents and other stuff we want to encourage.
Sometimes those things their parents may not approve of are that gay people who believe it’s moral for them to get married should be able to get married, that people who believe it’s proper for them to be Muslim should be able to practice their religion, and so on.
Sometimes those things are the information that nearly all scientists consider evolution to be true.
If anyone is teaching in schools, whether private or public, that some children’s parents must abandon their own religions, then they should stop doing that. But I think it’s often the information that others believe otherwise, combined with the information that they’re entitled to do so, that’s being objected to.
Except that this whole thread is about the public schools. If 20% of U.S. adults are functionally illiterate (I’m just throwing numbers out here), but that’s because 8% of them have an IQ of below 80 and 6% of them are immigrants and 4% dropped out of high school for factors that had more to do with the quality of life outside school than the quality of education within school, than the U.S. literacy rate has almost nothing to do with this thread - except maybe to address that conservatives like to blame government systems for problems that have very little to do with the system.
A lazy excuse only if you accept this as a given and don’t try to do anything about it, like enriching the education of those without the advantage of rich (or educated) parents.
When we moved here 25 years ago the one thing all the Real Estate agents showed us was test scores for the schools in the areas we were considering. Thus those with the money could buy in areas with “better” schools, and increase the disparity. The best school in our district had no better teachers and no better physical plant than the second best school, (and the same budget per kid) but had parents who pushed the hell out of their kids, and had money for tutors.
Clearly schools full of kids with problems are going to be harder to get an education in.