I used to be disgusted, and now I try to be amused.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally Posted by Adder

Which is why we were talking about programs that could help address parents and home life.

I, half jokingly, suggested we could find money to fund Head Start and other early intervention programs if we ended the drug war.

Wonk said he'd rather give the drug war savings directly to families.

SEC Chick said her mom knows a heck of a lot more about this than any of us.

I think we do a poor job of preparing people for parenthood. I think even if we did a better job, there will always be a lot of poorly prepared parents (being prepared obviously negatively correlates with becoming a parent). I think we could do a lot more - parenting class, child care, basic financial/nutritional/necessity support, Head Start, other early childhood interventions that I can't name off the top of my head - if we had funding for it.

It won't fix it all, but I think those are the things we can and should do to start to chip away at the 50%.

I don't know what all adds into the issue, but the problem I think is parents completely unprepared. If you have parents that had no educational background (not talking college, HS) other than lip service, can we expect them to do the hard work to get their kids to all your programs? And the parents that will take advantage of these things are the parents that get their kids moving already. You would make the 50% graduates better off more than reduce the number, I'm afraid.

Unless you get to Wonk's "put the bad parents in jail" which, no offense, may be the most condescending thing ever posted here.

[Adder]

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski

If you have parents that had no educational background (not talking college, HS) other than lip service, can we expect them to do the hard work to get their kids to all your programs?

That's a challenge. But most births, even (or especially) among the poor, take place with the assistance of health care professionals, so we have a touch point to make people aware of the available services and get the ball rolling. If you leave the hospital enrolled in whatever, you've at least got a shot.

And I probably should also have mentioned that ending the drug war and the carceral state would also do a lot to make struggling families more stable too.

And the parents that will take advantage of these things are the parents that get their kids moving already. You would make the 50% graduates better off more than reduce the number, I'm afraid.

That would be disappointing, but as a worst case scenario does not sound bad either.

Unless you get to Wonk's "put the bad parents in jail" which, no offense, may be the most condescending thing ever posted here.

It is unpossible that someone other than me said the most condescending thing ever posted here.

[SEC_Chick]

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski

Unless you get to Wonk's "put the bad parents in jail" which, no offense, may be the most condescending thing ever posted here.

I think my mom would probably come down on Wonk's side on that. It is sad to think that there is not a small number of kids, the best outcome for which would be the parents don't beat them or otherwise engage in abuse or gross neglect, and try to feed them at least once a day.

I have always planned to serve as a Child Advocate once the Chicklets are a little older, but it's stories like I saw this morning on CNN.com about the 4 year old who told authorities that her name was Idiot that have me drastically moving up the timeline for that.

[Replaced_Texan]

I'm as big of an Obama supporter as they come, and I'm very pro-Clinton, but both of them have had TERRIBLE responses to the devastation in Louisiana. I understand that practically, federal disaster funding has been provided and it WOULD be a distraction for the president to go down there when he can monitor from where he is, but at the very least SAY SOMETHING.

[Adder]

Originally Posted by SEC_Chick

I have always planned to serve as a Child Advocate once the Chicklets are a little older, but it's stories like I saw this morning on CNN.com about the 4 year old who told authorities that her name was Idiot that have me drastically moving up the timeline for that.

Good for you. I don't think I could handle it.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

One of the family members who is supporting Trump went on a tear yesterday on facebook. This shit is just frightening.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally Posted by SEC_Chick

I think my mom would probably come down on Wonk's side on that. It is sad to think that there is not a small number of kids, the best outcome for which would be the parents don't beat them or otherwise engage in abuse or gross neglect, and try to feed them at least once a day.

Physical abuse is one thing, but massive taking children from parents ain't happening.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...aborative_1_na

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...aborative_1_na

If I can paraphrase, this guy's position on who Trump supporters are is:

(1) they may be affluent, but they still worry about money;
(2) they may support his anti-trade policy even though it doesn't personally benefit them and they haven't been adversely affected by trade;
(3) they may well be racist but that doesn't mean they're voting for Trump just because he's racist, too.

None of which really jives with the headline, and none of which is really in the least bit very interesting. Especially since they're all hedged, so "maybe" it's not racism driving them to anti-trade policies, but maybe it is, and maybe they're racist but voting for Trump for other reasons but maybe it's that racism he's not actually denying too.

[Adder]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...aborative_1_na

That headline does not match the piece at all.

[Pretty Little Flower]

Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy

If I can paraphrase, this guy's position on who Trump supporters are is:

(1) they may be affluent, but they still worry about money;
(2) they may support his anti-trade policy even though it doesn't personally benefit them and they haven't been adversely affected by trade;
(3) they may well be racist but that doesn't mean they're voting for Trump just because he's racist, too.

None of which really jives with the headline, and none of which is really in the least bit very interesting. Especially since they're all hedged, so "maybe" it's not racism driving them to anti-trade policies, but maybe it is, and maybe they're racist but voting for Trump for other reasons but maybe it's that racism he's not actually denying too.

You don't understand anything. This article is sweet vindication for Sebastian against all the people here who are arguing 1) that all all of Trump's supporters are racist xenophobes, and/or 2) that Trump's success is solely attributable to racism and xenophobia. The only way the vindication would be sweeter is if anyone here were actually making those arguments. Stop trying to rain on his parade, you freakin' jackhole.

Here is "The Loser" by Black Sugar for the Daily Dose:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cUJXlqpV9yE

[ThurgreedMarshall]

Originally Posted by SEC_Chick

Charter schools are very popular with Rs, and are generally vehemently opposed by Democrats and teacher's unions. Most every voucher program I can recall has been geared towards low-income communities with failing schools. Remind me who it was that wanted to withhold funding from the DC voucher program that significantly increased high school graduation rates?

This is a complicated issue that you are giving short shrift. Just because voucher programs and charter schools sometimes aim at low income communities does not necessarily make them positive things. They tend to pluck a certain percentage of kids who would be successful and whose parents would have been actively involved in the public school system out of that system, leaving it completely destroyed. Apparently when it comes to performance, when you average out charter school performance, they don't do much better than public schools. And the barriers to entry for these charter schools are so low in so many states, that they often fail in the middle of the fucking year.

It's a tough issue and John Oliver just covered it a bit.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l_htSPGAY7I

TM

[ThurgreedMarshall]

Originally Posted by SEC_Chick

I believe the best determinant is in fact the educational level of the mother, but same difference. It's been pretty well established that throwing money at schools doesn't make them better (see Newark). The fact is a lot of problems in lower income areas of all types would be solved if parents didn't suck, which is one of the major themes in the Hillbilly Elegy book. It's been long established that the way to get out of poverty is to finish high school and to not have kids until you are at least 20 and married, but it's not like people base their actions on the empirical evidence that would make their lives better.

Preach, sister! People who have been forced into ghettos for generations, forgotten about, neglected, ridiculed, treated like criminals based on skin color and geography, and discriminated against in every conceivable way while being told that they just need to apply themselves, inconceivably tend to ignore the empirical evidence that is so readily available to them.

Holy shit.

TM

[ThurgreedMarshall]

Originally Posted by SEC_Chick

The problem is actually not the schools. The schools are already being asked to do too much that is not related to educating kids. If kids came to school ready to learn, that alone would be a huge improvement. The impact of a lack of parental responsibility and engagement cannot be overcome just by programs or actions in the public schools. It doesn't take a village, it takes parents with standards and expectations who give a crap about their kids. It's pretty hard to break the cycle of multi-generational dependency. But beyond that, it is almost impossible to help people who don't really want to change anything.

I have to say, almost everything you have to say on this topic makes me fucking disgusted.

TM

[taxwonk]

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski

You have no sense of what you are talking about. You have no idea of the problem.

I completely understand the problem. In fact, I understand both sides of it. That's why I am favoring a solution that provides a subsistence safety net for those who can't or simply won't try to improve their lot, and at the same time, doesn't act as a disincentive for those who do. It reduces the time dealing with a massive bureaucracy with multiple agencies serving multiple agendas. It doesn't encourage fathers to leave home in order to allow a mother and child to qualify for benefits. It also frees up public funds to work on infrastructure, better pay for teachers, and a multitude of other positive changes.

I also understand that, ultimately, without parents showing up at school on parent-teacher night asking why their kids aren't being taught x, y, or z, while their boss's kids in Bloomfield Hills are, there will never be any quantum change.

You have this rather chafing habit of acting as though you at the only one who understands whatever issue may be under discussion. I realize it's the role you have cast for yourself here, but it does make one wonder why they bother engaging with you on any topic in this particular forum.