The Myth Behind Public School Failure

[BeachBumDeac]

How is extending the school year to get kids away from their parents any less offensive (and actually not more offensive) then my repeated assertion that we should pay people to be voluntarily sterilized as the ultimate solution?

Holy shit

 

[2&2 Slider To Leyritz]

you can't see how it's beneficial to society as whole to keep kids in a safe, structured, supportive environment for a larger portion of their day if the alternative is (at best) a set of busy/tired and at worst, neglectful or abusive set of parents?

Of course I see the benefit of that for kids with a neglectful or absuve set of parents. However, I am not in favor of re-tooling the entire school system simply to get those kids away from their parents. Is your argument that that the majority of kids have neglectful or abusive parents? If so, then we can all just pack up and move elsewhere right now, because longer school days are not going to save us.

ETA: and if you are too tired/busy to have kids, then guess what - don't fucking have them.

 

[2&2 Slider To Leyritz]

Holy shit

Right, because it is not offensive to tell kids "Hey, we think your parents are pieces of shit and you should spend as little time as possible with them, so we are going to completely overhaul our school systems simply so you can get away from them." That is certainly a better message to convey then to simply state that some people may not want to have kids, so if you are certain that is the case then we will incentivize you to make sure it doesn't happen.

 

[ImTheCaptain]

Of course I see the benefit of that for kids with a neglectful or absuve set of parents. However, I am not in favor of re-tooling the entire school system simply to get those kids away from their parents. Is your argument that that the majority of kids have neglectful or abusive parents? If so, then we can all just pack up and move elsewhere right now, because longer school days are not going to save us.

ETA: and if you are too tired/busy to have kids, then guess what - don't fucking have them.

my point is that children of poor people generally have a shitty home life compared to middle and upper class families. these kids benefit from after school programs.

and the bolded ETA is just fucking dumb, can't wait for that part of the discussion to launch (again)

 

[ImTheCaptain]

Right, because it is not offensive to tell kids "Hey, we think your parents are pieces of shit and you should spend as little time as possible with them, so we are going to completely overhaul our school systems simply so you can get away from them." That is certainly a better message to convey then to simply state that some people may not want to have kids, so if you are certain that is the case then we will incentivize you to make sure it doesn't happen.

except that's not how it happens. it's not "the state's taking your kids" it's "hey, we have these programs kids can do instead of going home and playing videogames by themselves or roaming the streets with bad influences"

 

[bigdoublezero]

I'd pay for 2&2 and his family to be sterilized without a second thought.

 

[myDeaconmyhand]

So exactly where does "our fucking job" begin and end? I don't remember reading anywhere that the public school system was constitutionally limited to teaching kids 7 hours a day. Also, the theory that focusing on needy children will somehow drag down the rest is bullshit plain and simple- it's nothing but selfish conservative paranoid propaganda

 

[2&2 Slider To Leyritz]

my point is that children of poor people generally have a shitty home life compared to middle and upper class families. these kids benefit from after school programs.

No shit. But the discussion is not about voluntary after school programs for those who want to utilize them. It is about extending the school day and school year for everyone. Those are two completely different concepts.

 

[RJKarl]

Right, because it is not offensive to tell kids "Hey, we think your parents are pieces of shit and you should spend as little time as possible with them, so we are going to completely overhaul our school systems simply so you can get away from them." That is certainly a better message to convey then to simply state that some people may not want to have kids, so if you are certain that is the case then we will incentivize you to make sure it doesn't happen.

Who is anti-religion and why?

 

[DeaconCav06]

2&2 likes "natural linear stratification" because he's on the top of it, and he is confident his kids will be too.

Here's a thought experiment for 2&2: if you knew you had to be reincarnated in America, but you had no way of knowing what set of parents you would be blessed or cursed with, which kind of school system would you want? My kind or your "natural linear stratification" kind?

Easy there John Rawls.

 

[2&2 Slider To Leyritz]

2&2 likes "natural linear stratification" because he's on the top of it, and he is confident his kids will be too.

Here's a thought experiment for 2&2: if you knew you had to be reincarnated in America, but you had no way of knowing what set of parents you would be blessed or cursed with, which kind of school system would you want? My kind or your "natural linear stratification" kind?

I'm going with mine every time. I'm taking the odds that my parents are not in the ~10% "really shitty" category, but instead are in the ~90% "probably decent" category. If I can combine my own motiviation with their "probably decent" intent, then I will have a pretty good shot at being fine.

 

[ImTheCaptain]

No shit. But the discussion is not about voluntary after school programs for those who want to utilize them. It is about extending the school day and school year for everyone. Those are two completely different concepts.

how so? it's possible the marginal benefit is less for top-earning families, but probably not much

 

[RJKarl]

2&2 you said that people are anti-religion. Why won't you answer who that is and how you determine this?

 

[Wrangor]

how so? it's possible the marginal benefit is less for top-earning families, but probably not much

If you are rich and don't like it then you can send your kids to a private school.

 

[Deacon923]

More time in school would be good for everyone.

Less money and time wasted on competitive hs athletics would be good too.

Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk

 

[Deacon923]

I'm going with mine every time. I'm taking the odds that my parents are not in the ~10% "really shitty" category, but instead are in the ~90% "probably decent" category. If I can combine my own motiviation with their "probably decent" intent, then I will have a pretty good shot at being fine.

Good luck with that. Your destiny in life has a lot more to do with the SES of your parents- good bad or indifferent - than your kick ass motivation. Oh and being white. That doesn't fit in your world view, but it's true.

Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk

 

[PhDeac]

More time in school would be good for everyone.

Less money and time wasted on competitive hs athletics would be good too.

Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk

This.

 

[2&2 Slider To Leyritz]

More time in school would be good for everyone.

Good for who? Kids who aren't leaning much? Doubtful. Taxpayers who would have to pay more? Doubtful. Teachers who already complain that they work too much for too little and surely would not be happy with whatever additional amounts were tacked on for the extra required time? Doubtful. Working parents who would pay less in afterschool care? Perhaps, but depends on how much their taxes increase to cover the increased school. Parents who simply don't want to be around their kids? Okay, you got me on that one.

Simply saying kids spending more time in shitty schools will result in better education is an awful position to take.

 

[PhDeac]

We could also make the schools less shitty, pay teachers as professionals who work a 9-5, 12 months a year, etc.

 

[2&2 Slider To Leyritz]

2&2 you said that people are anti-religion. Why won't you answer who that is and how you determine this?

Just flipping back a few pages in this thread gives me this quote from 923 at Post #122: "You can send them to a church school for $5,000 a year if you don't mind them learning that Jesus rode on dinosaurs."

Now, I recognize that he was presenting it as a joke, but it does highlight the hipster attitude of praise science and laugh at religion that I think has sourced some of our societal problems. And personally, I am not religious and believe fully in science. That said,: (1) I recognize the positive effect that (excluding the whole creationism vs evolution debate) religious values can have on eduction; and (2) we like to cherrypick the positives of science while ignoring that evolution is still ongoing and accept the obvious component that certain individuals will flourish while others will fail, for various reasons.