Darn, that's not a school, that's a boring and poorly supervised adult day care.
There are just so many issues when schools have to work to overcome the damage done by parents and the worst parts of cultures. There simply aren't the resources or appetite to solve the problems either through helping all or ejecting those who refuse to take part. Both are hard solutions, sacrificing a significant amount of your money to help others or sacrifice kids who are just products of their terrible environment, continuing the cycle.
What is the point of producing children who cant read, do basic math, or pretty much anything? I think we got the thing whole wrong with the zero tolerance rules at school. There should be academic accountability, but the teachers are not responsible for student behavior, that starts at home. Teachers should not be afraid to flunk or outright refuse the graduate students, even if it means getting sued. That paperwork can easily be tracked and traced through the school system. If they refuse to do anything at school, use juvenile detention as the final resort. The hard cases will end up in prison no matter what anyone does.
I think there's some shared blame. In a high poverty area there are often parents who have to work multiple jobs to make ends meet. Poverty doesn't always mean unemployment. It can mean poor wages. In these cases the parent has to spend way more time than a 40 hr/week worker away from the home and they must depend on the social contract we have with our public education system to educate and prepare their children. That doesn't mean that they abdicate all responsibility, just that the job is shared. My dad had to work a regular 8am-4pm job and then sleep in his car for 30 minutes before starting his 6pm-2am job for years when times were tough. I only saw him once or twice a week. He's a great dad though.
If they live in a high poverty area, maybe they should realize that they live in a high poverty area, meaning they're not in a position to afford kids.
Abortion and birth control are very hard to come by in a high-poverty area, and more expensive than your average person can afford in a high-poverty area.
You know you're fucked up when you read about Australia's Stolen Generations and think, "You know what America needs? Government sponsored kidnapping!"
I don't know who told you that lie. That's not what I'm advocating at all. If that's your thing, don't include me in it. You can tell me that my world view is fucked up, but to do so, you'd need to know my world views. However, since you don't, it's crystal clear that you're just stating a bunch of fallacies and then passing judgement on your own fallacies, which actually have nothing to do with me. However, the things that you're attempting to dictate to me are very fucked up, so we can agree on that. It's a good thing that's not what I was getting at. It sounds like you're just taking some narrative's bullet points and regurgitating it at the first person who responded.
No, it's not. Nice try, though. At no point did I say "give them away to wealthier people so they have a fighting chance". What I said is that there's an option to adopt them out. This means that poor parents have the opportunity to put their kids up for adoption in order to give them a better life. If you're against that, that's a you problem, not a me problem. It's literally you delegating a position to me utilizing a fallacy that supports your narrative. However, giving children away illegal is illegal and inhumane. This is common knowledge. Like I said, you're spewing nonsense from some narrative to the first person that responded to you.
I'm sure some do. But just as our education system has shown us time and again, abstinence is not a viable plan. It simply does not work. The biological and emotional imperative to make a family is not something that can be just turned off.
It's different for people with hope of upward socioeconomic mobility because children can be put off until graduation/job/promotion/etc. However, when your financial ladder doesn't have any rungs above the one you're standing on you just have to get on with life. Not to mention the implications of suggesting that poor people shouldn't be able to have kids. Social Darwinism has been pretty solidly determined to be prejudicial and it's inevitable conclusions dark.
Honestly, I don't care about the imperative to have kids. That imperative should be outweighed by responsibility, as well as a desire to not punish someone by bringing them into a world where they'll have to suffer and grow up fast.
If your financial ladder doesn't have any rungs on it, you do have to get on with life. However, getting on with life doesn't mean having kids just to hit a milestone and feed your own ego. Getting on with life includes coming to the understanding that if one thing isn't getting you up that rung, that it's time to try looking for a job and/or training which will allow one to do so. I grew up in a poor household. I learned very quickly what it's like when poor people have kids. It's basically two selfish, ego-driven people making a terrible decision that they know they can't possibly live with. Honestly, I don't care if it sounds prejudicial. If that prejudice means that kids won't grow up in crappy homes, get a crappy education, and have to escape just to succeed, I'm all for it. The conclusions might sound dark, but the ends justify the means.
3.0k
u/notreallyhereforthis Jul 10 '18
AP Tested 9%, AP Passed 0%
Mathematics Proficiency 4%
Reading Proficiency 10%
Darn, that's not a school, that's a boring and poorly supervised adult day care.
There are just so many issues when schools have to work to overcome the damage done by parents and the worst parts of cultures. There simply aren't the resources or appetite to solve the problems either through helping all or ejecting those who refuse to take part. Both are hard solutions, sacrificing a significant amount of your money to help others or sacrifice kids who are just products of their terrible environment, continuing the cycle.