See, I agree with this, too. I think all schools should be improved. I think education is the key to progress and civilization. I also think if the lower class becomes more educated a lot of people would be lifted out of poverty. I just don't think we should, or can, do it for them with lots of taxpayer dollars.

You are basically suggesting that we force the lower class into getting educated by making sure all of their problems are solved long enough that an entire generation can get a good education. The only way this will happen is through a massive welfare effort and basically an overhaul of their entire society. Again, like I said, what you are talking about is way beyond education and improving schools.

Because some opportunities require ability. Others require significant sums of money. Regardless of how some politicians act money is a scarce resource.

It is impossible to provide all kids the same opportunities. The best you can do is ensure all kids receive adequate opportunities while acknowledging that some kids will have more than others. The same goes for education.

Done correctly, it can be an investment. If it were an investment, however, it would pay for itself over time by generating productivity. Our current system of funneling children through a guantlet of minimum standards--and graduation as an end rather than a means--does not do that.

That's not what I'm suggesting at all. I'm telling you guys, I did this as a job. It wasn't very expensive and it worked. We didn't pay for all the stuff ourselves, but we helped parents access resources and we helped the kids within the school. As a result the school improved and the kids grew to like school because they knew they had support and saw they could actually succeed. If you think this requires a huge overhaul, you're wrong, because it's already happening in your own backyard.

Look up "communities in schools", you'll see what I'm talking about.

Graduation isn't much, but a high school graduate earns a lot more than a non-high school graduate, and if everyone graduates more kids are going to go to college. I am just amazed at the skepticism towards something that would have an obvious improvement in the long term.

They need far LESS resources? I could hardly disagree more. Everything about poor schools stacks the odds against those children. And yes, part of it is that schools in poor areas have become something of a babysitting depot and social service center as you say. That is part of the problem. But allow for me to paint you a picture, if you will be so kind.

Kid A goes to a ghetto school. 99% black, very poor area, basically assisted living type of slums. He is 5 years old entering Kindergarten. For the benefit of the counter argument we will say that his parent or guardian has actually spent time teaching him before he goes into school. (This rare phenomenon would certainly be the exception to the rule, but Kid A is the exception as well, he is gifted with intelligence that is clear to any adult given the opportunity to observe him.) So he enters K knowing his alphabet; he can already read at a 2nd grade level, and is comfortable with doing basic addition and subtraction. However, he enters a classroom where the vast majority of other students do not even know the alphabet and have certainly not advanced to reading words or spelling at all. To compound the situation for Kid A, there are numerous children who are considered behavior problems in the class. These kids have had almost no training at home, and what little discipline they have had usually comes in the form of being hit, or the threat of being hit. Alas, in a public school the teacher has no such authority to hit a student. Other consequences, such as pulling a red card, or getting a note written home, are really of no concern to them, since there is scantly a presence at home that is concerned about how they are doing in school. So many of the children feel free to become distractions and are so desperate for attention, any attention, that they will act out and disrupt the class constantly to receive that attention.

Many of the parents also do not actively engage in what the child is learning in school, so many, if not most, of the students don't see school, and in turn learning and being part of a healthy learning environment, as being of much importance. This is to say nothing of much of the baggage that they bring with them into the classroom. The world around them, and many of the people who they look up to, is a repudiation of the school system. Theirs is a world in which education is tragically not put on a pedestal as it is in even lower-middle class neighborhoods and up. So back to Kid A. He is gifted, yet he is forced to linger in a school environment that is too distracted by outside problems to focus on bringing his talents to the fore. Let’s say he still works hard and excels throughout his schooling. The ideal situation for him would be getting to go to another school in a better area for some sort of program of special study. If he does get this opportunity, he likely will find himself behind other students of more modest abilities simply as a result of their comparative school careers. He excelled in a school where third and fourth graders could barely read on a first or second grade level; he was exposed to computers and technology on a limited basis; in many ways he could only shine as much as his circumstance would allow him. Think of a 60 watt light bulb plugged into a lamp, which is hooked up to a socket in which the power flickers constantly and never gives a full power output to the socket; that bulb still works and has potential, but is never able to fully reach that potential because of adverse surroundings. The 45 watt bulb plugged into a working outlet shines more brightly, even though it is of less “ability.” I believe the same holds true for talented students in poor schools. The vast majority of the problems are not with the school itself, or possibly even the funding; rather, they are a combination of external influences at work that absolutely stack the deck against them.

How do we solve this? Unfortunately, in my opinion, I believe that the first thing that must be addressed is the culture itself in which there is little emphasis placed on education; in which it is more acceptable to be a good fighter than a good student; in which sports are often seen as the only way out; in which persons have a chip on the shoulders (rightly so or not) but don’t turn that into motivation for success but rather an excuse to be another example of the problem; in which crime is glorified. These are huge systemic problems facing the black community today in my view. What are the answers? Surely, providing a sound education must be part of the solution. This may mean additional funding for after school programs and Headstart programs. It means recruiting educators who truly care to make a difference and having other staffers who can focus on getting those other distractions out of the way so that teachers can actually have 6 quality hours of teaching time, because I can assure you this is most often not the case. It means finding ways to get the parents and community involved and looking forward, not looking back to problems and allowing themselves to wallow in poverty as part of a self-defeating, self-fulfilling prophecy. It is no small task, and not one that can be solved in any one way; but I fail to see how doing our best to offer these kids, or perhaps more realistically their kids, a chance at something approaching an equal education can possibly be a bad thing.

After reading your post, aprilfifth, it comes to mind that the best way to solve the problem is to make school attendance non-mandatory. Let the black community pull their kids from school if they want to, and the ones that actually care about their kids and their future can send them to school.

More importantly, as I said before, this isn't simply a matter of education. This is a matter of culture. The problem isn't the schools, it is the society. You ask how "we" should solve this. I don't think we should solve this anymore than we should solve any other group in society that acts in some way we consider negatively. Every one of their problems is perpetuated by their own actions.

If you guys want to turn this into a discussion about what should be done about black society, we should probably do it somewhere else, because in this thread right now we are supposed to be discussing the education system. If having the same opportunity in school means having the same socio-economic status as middle-class whites, and none of the problems that kids in the ghettos have, I'm afraid poor black kids are going to be shit out of luck if they try to rely on the government, or public education, to make things equal.

I'd say we're about on the same page with regards to your last post. The problem goes far beyond the classroom. I'd caution that the idea of allowing parents to not send their kids to school would never work, because school is 2 free meals and at least 6-7 hours that the kids are spoken for; so that wouldn't be effective.

I've often thought about making a thread on the problems facing the black community today, but I've hesitated for a few reasons, but mainly the fact that a strong critique of the black culture as it is currently will almost certainly degenerate into non-constructive arguments and complaining, with people accusing and being accused of racism. I think I'd like to make the thread though eventually. I can do an introductory write-up and place it in a historical context so it can be part of my flailing "Historical Discussion" series.

Friggin A. A good discussion was going on when I started typing this, but I had to go workout and then shower and eat dinner. By the time I posted the conversation was over. Oh well.

I still stand by that schools needs less resources and other social service programs need more. I'd be happy to have schools lose the resources that have them doing social work and providing basically free babysitting. With the resources the schools have we've let their mandate become to include a lot more than education and it has become nearly unmanageable and at the sacrifice of providing the best education possible.

Let's take the issue of money/resources out of the picture for a moment, pretend it doesn't matter. How, in practice, would a poor school be able to divorce itself from the negatives around it and solely provide a good education? In other words, what steps would have to be taken for them not to be babysitters or a social service that would contribute to the level of education increasing?

1. Scrap things like breakfast and lunch programs. If these are needed let them be delivered outside the school.
2. If these kids need additional encouragement to stay in school, have this be provided outside of schools through structured big brother/sister/mentoring programs.
3. If a student is not ready for a classroom environment take the kid out of the classroom and provide him/her the help (non-acedemic) they need. Leaving the kid in class is one of the factors turning the classroom as a glorified babysitting service.

Make schools a place of education with high expectations on behavior. It's amazing what people of every background do when you support high achievement while showing that poor behavior is not tolerated.

All of these will require funding. Some of which will come from current school funding and some of it will be new money or come from existing programs.

#3 was the one I was waiting to see.

I more or less agree with most of what tyler is saying, but I would add making school non-mandatory. I'm not saying that is necessarily the best idea given the circumstances. I do, however, think it would serve to make the school more of an education only environment.

Making school non-mandatory is one option. Another option is just sending kids who interrupt the learning process home. Stop giving free lunches and stop making the school a place for parents to simply dump off their kids for whatever length of time. I'm not too sure this is a good idea, just something I thought of, but one thing you could do is make stuff like lunch and breakfast contingent on grades/behavior.

I'm thinking of this in terms of college in the sense that you are there because you want to be, you are there to learn, and if you don't want to be there and you don't want to learn, noone is making you stay. That doesn't mean you just dump the problem kids and don't help anyone. Part of being a better school means helping the kids who have trouble, whether it be concentrating or just understanding the material.

Of course the result of this is up for debate. I very much doubt that, if left in the hands of the children and parents, the level of education in these communities would go up. But I am highly opposed to trying to force people out of the lower class and out of their situations. I think top level schools should be available to the poorest kids, but it should be completely their initiative to take advantage of them. If they choose not to, let them drop out and not receive an education. I don't believe any form of welfare state is helping the minority community and I think the only way in the long term is to make it possible for them to help themselves.

So, idealistically speaking, my first preference would be that very good schools with lots of resources, great teachers, and diverse curriculums should be available to everyone, I think every single school in America should be like this. At the same time, I think every school should narrow their purpose to education and only education. A great education should be a right that is afforded to everyone, and it should be everyones right to choose whether or not to exercise it.

Now, that is only idealistically. Realistically, I think almost every school needs a lot of work, some more than others. I don't think it is fair, or right, however, for poor schools to receive a hugely disproportionate amount of extra funding, however. Given that we have a limited budget, I think we should help every school where possible, and yes every school should meet some kind of minimum requirements, but this minimum requirement should never be so high as to require us to neglect other schools.

I'm not necessarily saying that every school should get the exact same amount of money, either. I just have a very hard time specifically saying that we are focusing on poor schools. Some of them should get more money, no doubt. But that should not be the focus.

3. If a student is not ready for a classroom environment take the kid out of the classroom and provide him/her the help (non-acedemic) they need. Leaving the kid in class is one of the factors turning the classroom as a glorified babysitting service.

What are your thoughts on this?

When a kid has a broken leg we don't expect him/her to participate in gym class. We ensure the kid gets the necessary healthcare to recover and then reintegrate the kid into gym class. Why would we ever set up an acedemic situation that is any different?

I absolutely agree with this point. The thing that makes these classrooms so ineffective is often the behavior of a few students and there are simply too many behavior problems to deal with them effectively the way the system is currently set up. So they end up sabatoging the learning of everybody around them, not to mention often taking the spirit and will out of the teacher.

I'm completely baffled that so many of you think making school non-mandatory can be remotely an option.

sure the schools will be better... but education won't!

you're basically saying anyone that's poor is condemned to stay that way. Social mobility only started happening with compulsory schooling.
You'll see crime rates skyrocket. What do you think all those bored kids are going to do all day? really? no money and so nothing to do... that already happens but that'd be 10 times worse.

it IS the job of school to provide an education, and that includes social one if the parents are not able to do it.

yes it's much better if the parents are involved, and that's the single most determining factor in a child success (better educated parents, who also are generally better of financially, are generally more involved..but it's the involvement which is in fact the most important factor..there's been studies on that).

What I hear from here is 'punish the children for having bad/stupid/ignorant parents'.

well, I firmly believe the contrary is true, they need more help to compensate.
And it's not even altruistic, in the long run it benefits everyone to have more responsible, economically viable people around (more tax revenue, less crime, less entitlements costs..).

I think Buff is the only one who has suggested that.

tyler and you seem to agree with it though!

You're not saying it's wrong.

In no way do I agree with it. I want school mandatory for those able to participate at a reasonable level. For those unable to participate ata reasonable level I'd want help given to get them to that point to be mandatory. It serves no good purpose to keep a kid who's not ready for a classroom setting in a mainstream classroom. In order to keep our schools focused on providing education and to get away from being social service providers and babysitters I think it would be beneficial that the services provided to the child to get them ready for a classroom setting be providing outside the school system.

You wouldn't make a kid with a broken leg participate in gym class. Why make a kid just as unprepared and unable to participate in a classroom setting be in a mainstream classroom? I want to give the kid the services and support they require, get them to a point where they are ready to take part in a classroom setting and then get them in the classroom.