Sorry parents are not synonymous with parents who have no money. (I’d say poor, but that could be misinterpreted.) I was on a focus group when my kids’ high school was looking for a new principal. Parent after parent talked about the importance of the sports program. I talked about the importance of academics - and they looked at me like I was nuts. And these people worked in good jobs and had plenty of money.
I don’t know what this means, “straighten out parental incompetence.” It is absolutely the job of the government to ensure that children are able to get a good education. Because that means that children need to be able to focus in school, that has huge implications.
So yeah, I’ve taught kids whose parents are mentally ill, or who are on parole, or who are homeless, or who are in and out of jail and prison, or who live in excruciating poverty–or, more often, are a hot mess of these conditions. And that’s when I say, “Sorry, kid, sucks to be you, but I’m not gonna let your problems deny Sally over here an education. Good luck with all that.”
Wait, that’s not what I say.
I do my best to make sure that Sally’s getting a good education, but I also do my best to make sure that the kid who’s coming to school exhausted, in clothes smelling of urine, and who never got a chance to do her homework gets the best education I can give her. That’s my frontline role.
And I advocate meanwhile for policies that ensure that parents get the help they need to be stable parents, because ultimately that’s the only way that those kids get the stable home life they need in order to focus in school.
Part of this public policy means that we don’t ghettoize the kids whose families are struggling. If we’re gonna hold to the idea of public education of all kids, that means we’re all in this together, and we need to ensure that we don’t have a two-tiered education system where kids with struggling families get dumped in holding pens until they’re old enough for prison, while kids with stable home lives get the education they need to be the next generation of middle-class Americans.
In unrelated news, I’m moving my ass to Denmark and applying for a job.
There was a recent study done by the University of Virginia regarding whether attendance in Private vs. Public schools could predict preparedness of those students upon reaching age 15. This study was done looking a numerous variables or race, gender, neighborhoods, maternal characteristics, etc. and trying to determine if attending private school vs. public school would better ready you as a student going into secondary education. They concluded that among most of the variables there were no significant variation on the preparedness of the student, with the exception of one variable: parents income. If your parents had money, then it didn’t matter what type of school you went to, the student’s preparedness was significantly improved. While that was the study’s conclusions, I’m sure that there are many exceptions. But generally I can see that holding true. So how do you solve that? Income re-distribution?
I first found out about it through an io9 article that linked tothis short video.
Well I’m sort of going to disagree in that I wish we could take away those kids and put them in a better environment. maybe some sort of group home would be better than what they are leaving.
Yeah, maybe. Historically, forcibly removing minority children from their parents in order to enculturate them into white mainstream culture has a super successful history and has not led to any atrocities at all. Good idea, man.
Oh you think this is the same as the old indian schools?
No, I was thinking more like Boys Town. They arent the horror story you have in your head.
They’re also not the “forcibly separate children from parents with mental health issues and raise them according to white middle class values” story you have in your head, either, are they?
FWIW, when you’re responding to my posts talking about forcible removal, I’m seeing the faces of specific children and specific parents. This is personal for me.
There have been cases in which I’ve favored involuntary separation of child from parent, in cases of serious abuse. But your proposal seems to be far more reaching than that.
I also personally know some kids who were either taken from their parents or else the parents voluntarily left them, I dont know. But I do know the foster families raised them well and they are much better off now. One I know is a native american kid who was friends of my sons whom he met thru hockey. Sure he could have been left on that crappy reservation in Arizona but instead, has had a pretty good upbringing with his foster family who later adopted him. He now has the opportunity to embrace whatever culture he wishes. Your should be more open to things.
:rolleyes: Reread what I wrote. I’ve known, and supported, kids who were forcibly removed from their families. But you’re calling for something much more widespread than what currently happens, and that’s seriously fucked.
Even for those kids who’d been victims of sexual violence, or other horrendous physical and psychological abuse, removal from their families was an act of trauma. It’s something that they needed some serious therapy to make it through.
You don’t do that unless it’s really really important.
And even now, our foster care system is swamped. The idea that we’re gonna take every kid whose parents “are mentally ill, or who are on parole, or who are homeless, or who are in and out of jail and prison, or who live in excruciating poverty” and pop them into an orphanage is as unrealistic as it is barbaric.