I agree with this personally, but w/o hard proof I would have to make it 50/50. And to a degree that is true. You have a kid from a good home in a school w/gangs and all types of fukkery and missing resources, they prob wont do well even w/the parents' help. Likewise I personally have seen kids living in poverty fail at "ideal" schools. So people need to stop making one more important than the other because of personal bias.
Forced to focus on the things that really matter.
- Thread starter Zapp Brannigan
- Start date
You make a very good point with this bit. I still think though that some of the lower class in the US can learn a thing or two from these go getters in third world countries that make something happen from absolutely nothing, rather than just blame everything on the system.
HoustonHeat
In and out
I would argue things like more funding for community drug rehab programs, job preparation programs, adequate public transportation, and adult education programs do help many adults create a more stable home life. Hell, I've seen the improvement that more consistent meals and a coat drive can do for a family and the child's academic performance.
No one in this thread has been against bringing more resources to the kids, it's just that textbooks and computers alone may not produce the most impactful change for a deeper problem.
*waits for No bammer weed*Because that takes the blame off of bad parenting.
The idea that parents taking their kids out of poverty, and by proxy a kid being born into poverty, has no effect on a kid's academic performance and isn't something society should be focused on is ridiculous.
In fact, I am pretty sure @MeachTheMonster and I have had discussions on poverty, with him stressing the importance of helping poor people to break the cycle. Now all of a sudden its
poor adults, because that counters the idea that something besides the system is to blame for someone's outcome. Come on fam
Last edited by a moderator:
The idea that a school is supposed to be able to uplift a kid out of any circumstance w/no input from parents is ridiculous. You claim that this is not what you are saying, but then place all the blame/responsibility for a kid's success on the school they go to, which is the exact same thing
Ideally you would have both. But if either piece is missing the kid is not going to do well. You are trying to absolve the parents of blame/responsibility for personal reasons.
Thats the problem with these sort of discussions, people such as yourself are always seeking to assign "blame", and distribute shame to the principles of one side of the argument (generally the most vulnerable), rather than seek to analyze factors, and find solutions.
Responding with Meech's position that black kids should have the same resources available at schools as white kids, with this notion that its irrelevant because those kids are just going to fail anyway because their parents arent Ward and June Cleaver, really speaks to significant racial conditioning from where I sit.
The idea that a school is supposed to be able to uplift a kid out of any circumstance w/no input from parents is ridiculous. You claim that this is not what you are saying, but then place all the blame/responsibility for a kid's success on the school they go to, which is the exact same thing
You talking to yourself here?
Or here?
I never claimed that anyone in this thread made this statement.
MeahTheMonster said:
I said the "bad parenting" argument is used to justify unfair treatment of our kids. And those of you repeating that sentiment only strengthens their argument. Personal responsibilty is a common sense concept and serves no purpose when talking about public policy, other than to distract from what actually can be done.
Blackout
just your usual nerdy brotha
That's not going to help if the students aren't interested in learning or have a support system that keeps that interested in learning. The problem isn't the resources available, it's the attitude of the student which is typically a reflection of home life.
Because that takes the blame off of bad parenting.
The idea that parents taking their kids out of poverty, and by proxy a kid being born into poverty, has no effect on a kid's academic performance and isn't something society should be focused on is ridiculous.
In fact, I am pretty sure @MeachTheMonster and I have had discussions on poverty, with him stressing the importance of helping poor people to break the cycle. Now all of a sudden its
You have real reading comprehension problems or you just don't care to actually respond to what is in front of your face.
Our conversation about poor people breaking the cycle was about resources and opportunities. The same as I've said here.
And Where did I say
poor adults or that the system was to blame for someone's individual outcome?I guess I will leave you with your own quote again
Last edited by a moderator:
Again, we are all in agreement that everyone should have access to the same resources.
But again, if you are saying that a kid's home or parents have no influence on their outcome, you are wrong.
Meech repeatedly asserted that a school should be able to lift a kid up regardless of where he/she comes from, and if it doesn't do so it has failed... removing all responsibility of the kid's outcome from the parents. I don't agree with that.
And I said nothing about the race of the kids involved. The shyt I am saying applies to kids of all races. Stop projecting.
So someone can't acknowledge the significant role of parenting & the home environment in a kid's outcome while also believing/demanding that all kids have access to the same quality of resources? That doesn't stregnthen "their" argument at all. If you have to hide/lie/obfuscate to make your POV seem strong it must not be very strong on its own. Bottom line though, for the last time, parenting is very important in a kid's outcome- I would say more important than what school the kid goes to- but I also think every kid should have access to the same quality education, REGARDLESS OF WHO THEIR PARENTS ARE.
Unfortunately school is a business. Test scores and graduation are measures of that school's success and no one is going to invest in a business/school where statistically speaking the majority of the population is going to receive bad test scores and not graduate. Resources are not the problem, the attitude of a lot of students is what causes the issues and that's never going to be easy to fix and it certainly won't be fixed with money.
Y'all keep trying to equate more resources to mean "books and computers" it goes way beyond that. Books and computers are a physical representation of a schools ability to provide students what they need. But we all know school and educational development depend on a lot more than that.
You said yourself that your mom was able to turn a class around. That's a RESOURCE schools need money to hire quality teachers. Teachers need to be paid well in order to give their all to the kids.
Resources are better nutrition plans for the kids. Resources are counseling programs to help the kids deal with their home situations. Resources are afterschool activities and new proven lesson plans. And the list goes on.
And just what makes you so assured of this? What kind of sense does it make that as a society, providing less to a certain group of children will somehow produce better results? Why are you so invested in reproducing a racist argument that giving black kids the same resources as white kids, wont improve results? Isnt that idea illogical?
Success is a product of stimulation, not deprivation. If we as a society constantly strive to lay the foundation of success for all children, then we create a better environment, and we'll see better results in a general sense. How can you justify giving children less? How are the actions of the parents the child's fault, as if you're punishing the children for not being born privileged.
