Opinion I've been saying it starts at home.

[salamander]

Reality is a hard pill to swallow. For example -- if someone points out that people have been fighting for quality schools and quality teachers since the 1900s, some people struggle with the reality that the schools and teachers aren't very good. If someone points out that the generations of poor schooling and learning opportunities negatively impacted the opportunities to get meaningful work and that affects the next generation, some people struggle with that reality too.

The reality is that if you take a child, deny him/her a quality education and equal access to the work force, they're going to have fewer tools to create a stronger environment for the next generation. And thus whatever progress you get will happen significantly slower than if the initial problem was resolved quickly and sincerely.

Why people struggle to accept that is beyond me because they grasp the concept just fine when it comes to themselves, their parents and their offspring. They only struggle with the concept when it's applied universally.

What would be the fix towards raising the standards?
Is this a funding issue or a class issue or...?

 

[KeithHackneyballpunch]

Hey guys, c'mere for a sec.

Ethnicity isn't a pertinent touchstone in this topic, it's foundational. I'm using ideas and concepts as it relates to personal experience, my bias, my viewpoints to produce an argument to the OP.

Notice how So Fresh isn't addressing anything I have been writing in terms of solutions as it pertains to the topic? Not once in this back and forth has he even tried to make any.

Lets see what he's been doing here:





So he addressed my points by asking why I would think to comment on pertinent elements that pertain to the topic. And labeled it strange.

Then he followed up by dismissing any good faith motives behind my rational, made fact-free projections, dosed me with a bit of white-paternalism and then immediately closed out with the patent LeftWingGud/RightwingBaad paradigm, which I strongly suspect was the point all along.

I've long argued that hamfisting the LeftWingGud/RightwingBaad paradigm is toxic and oppositional to whatever it pretends to empower, and this is my proof. A European who claims left-wing tribal designation is telling me that my viewpoints as it relates to my experience is irrelevant to this topic. To have a keen interest and strong opinion is a product of pitable, unsettled mind.

What is relevant is "This may also explain why you believe in these CT’s about BLM, as them doing pogroms."

Now when you consider the deadpan autism of the threads he makes, and the troll angles he takes for the fights he wants to pick (invariably going back to LeftwingGud/RightwingBaad), how would you rate this rubbish?

Myself, I think exchanges like these actually do have value because it's shows the measure of my posts in terms of how rightly or wrongly I'm arguing or offering commentary about the OP.

With him, lacking any substantive rebuttal to my views as it pertains to the OP, his posts can only be a definitive measure of who and what he is as a man.

And that makes me smile.

Yo, leftwing Sherderati come get boi.

lol, go easy on this loser. Next time use a little lube

 

[MichiganMMA1978]

Hahaha hahaha, @So Fresh, take your L and bow out sir... you've been manhandled itt, and it's honestly embarrassing to watch you keep going on and on.

 

[salamander]

Hey guys another quick update.

-While before he could only screech and moan, his incel-lationary expansion has widened his vaginal event horizon to point that in addition to not being able to directly address the pertinent points in the arguments I've made ITT he can no longer use words.

C'mon Leftwing Sherderati, we got some of you in this thread pulling historical race cards out of your asses to assert the inherent morality of your political ideology (LOIOSH) instead of self-policing your own when it actually happens in the very thread you're using it.

Seriously, come get your boi.

 

[So Fresh]

Hahaha hahaha, @So Fresh, take your L and bow out sir... you've been manhandled itt, and it's honestly embarrassing to watch you keep going on and on.

Why are always the guys that I humiliated commenting on others supposed “L’s”?

 

[So Fresh]

Hey guys another quick update.

-While before he could only screech and moan, his incel-lationary expansion has widened his vaginal event horizon to point that in addition to not being able to directly address the pertinent points in the arguments I've made ITT he can no longer use words.

C'mon Leftwing Sherderati, we got some of you in this thread pulling historical race cards out of your asses to assert the inherent morality of your political ideology (LOIOSH) instead of self-policing your own when it actually happens in the very thread you're using it.

Seriously, come get your boi.

You pulled the race card and now you’re accusing others of always pulling the race card

the stupidity of you guys has no limit. Maybe throw some more CT’s in there, you’ll get more likes of your right wing buddies <Lmaoo>

 

[salamander]

Hahaha hahaha, @So Fresh, take your L and bow out sir... you've been manhandled itt, and it's honestly embarrassing to watch you keep going on and on.

There's a soothing rhythmic methodology that makes stacking fools like cordwood almost a meditative process.

 

[KeithHackneyballpunch]

There's a soothing rhythmic methodology that makes stacking fools like cordwood almost a meditative process.

Well, you’re skilled at this practice. You must be in constant Zen mode

 

[So Fresh]

Well, you’re skilled at this practice. You must be in constant Zen mode

Ofc this guy couldn’t be missed in the cheering squad <Lmaoo>

 

[MichiganMMA1978]

Why are always the guys that I humiliated commenting on others supposed “L’s”?

Lol thats cute. You actually think you've humiliated anyone?

 

[salamander]

You pulled the race card and now you’re accusing others of always pulling the race card

the stupidity of you guys has no limit. Maybe throw some more CT’s in there, you’ll get more likes of your right wing buddies <Lmaoo>

Hey guys just another quick update.

-Seems like things have taken a major turn. In his never-ending quest to avoid addressing any of the points I've made about the topic at hand, (while still obsessively trying to rebuke me because I broke a whole stegosaurus tail off in his mottled scraggly ferret-batty) he's escalated his cries for help by raising the stakes and breaking out the heavy HEAVY artillery...
LeftwingGuf/RightwingBaad AND......
laughing emojis

Spoiler

LeftwingAvengers Assemble, and come get your Booooooooooooooooooiiiiiiii!

 

[panamaican]

I can totally agree that the level of schooling in the Western world isn't always top notch, it's a fight of most caring parents even in the Nordics to guarantee the best possible school for their kids. And yes, I'm talking about the countries with some of the highest level of public education that the world has to offer. (And another topic would be then, why we are we in a situation where kids get bused and why some schools get worse and worse..)
Anyway, fixing the educational situation might take generations and focusing solely on education won't actually take away the problem that there currently is : the baseline lack of understanding of family values and towards a caring family in so many other ways, the direct clientelism of being supported by the government rather than earning more from working and I'd say that then comes the improved education, specifically in that particular order.
One has to be much more than an average kid to break out from the clutches of poisonous surroundings through education. Kudos to those who can, but the most unfortunately can't and aren't equipped to do that either.
I think of this problem as fixing the baseline, moving to step two and then to step three.
There can be no harm for improving a bad family life for the parents and the kids, there can't be any harm for people improving their lives by earning wages and there's definitely no harm done by pursuing better education.
I just believe that the education itself is wasted, if the rest of the setup isn't supportive..

Well, the statistics out there don't support the claim that there is a lack of family values or understanding towards a caring family. The stats that attempt to measure those things do not find the discrepancy that is often brought up casually.

Too frequently, people look at outcomes but aren't aware of the actual causes. Usually because the research that actually looked at whether or not a cause is true is not well known or dismissed because it diverges too much from preconceived beliefs.

As for education -- fixing education shouldn't take more than 1-2 generations. Fix the funding issues, step up the qualifications standards for teachers and pay according to the newer, higher standard, adopt a mastery model to the classroom (a la the Shanghai method). That's it. It could be shortened to "Prioritize educating everyone, not rewarding the most resourced." If we did the first half, we'd find the best students regardless of parental resources.

 

[salamander]

Well, you’re skilled at this practice. You must be in constant Zen mode

Naw, I just have the inborn ability to address a topic without shitting my pants and choking on my tongue while drowning in three inches of water. Or when I do I have the good graces and self-awareness to at least tryto do so quietly in a corner.

It was a combination of unresolved power and control issues and paternalistic racism that did him in. But generally speaking his type of schtick isn't sustainable.

You remember that dude that used to address peeps by starting of his post with "Hiya."?

eg. Hlya, SoFresh. Is that....a gloryhole above your head?"

Now THAT was a schtick that stuck. I think it lasted the better part of a decade. What I slumming with right now is Canadian Tire Parts and a Seaking.

 

[panamaican]

What would be the fix towards raising the standards?
Is this a funding issue or a class issue or...?

Fix the funding issues, step up the qualifications standards for teachers and pay according to the newer, higher standard, adopt a mastery model to the classroom (a la the Shanghai method). That's it. It could be shortened to "Prioritize educating everyone, not rewarding the most resourced." If we did the first half, we'd find the best students regardless of parental resources.

Essentially, we have an education system that is geared towards the most resourced. More resourced communities get newer buildings, better qualified teachers, etc. But those communities also spend a significant amount of money outside of the classroom to reinforce and advance the education their kids are receiving. This means that the most resourced accrue greater educational rewards because of the resources, not the core ability.

We see this in sports as well. Take 2 kids with equal potential to be MLB pitchers. They both play Little League. One kid has a coach who played pro ball, the other kid has a coach who only played college ball. The difference in knowledge is going to have an impact. But that's not where it really matters. The kid with the pro coach - his parents are paying for a private pitching coach every week. The other kid is practicing with his dad who never played baseball as a kid. They're spending the same amount of hours practicing pitching but one kid is getting far better instruction as a result of having better resources to tap into.

Our education system works in a very similar way. The resource gap shows up in teacher qualification, school quality (labs, libraries), etc. Things that might get missed if people only look at total dollar spend.

I've become a fan of the Shanghai mastery model because I think it makes some effort to bypass this resource problem. In the Shanghai mastery model, the classroom doesn't move to a new concept until everyone in the classroom grasps the concept. Applied from kindergarten age onward, it minimizes situations where kids fall behind the classroom and then are dependent on their parents to shore up their education. Which works fine when the parents know the child is falling behind and have the resources to intervene. But at the younger ages like kindergarten and 1st grade, most parents don't know which concepts are supposed to be mastered vs. which ones are still developing.

Our model should apply mastery to the entire classroom, rather that identifying which kids are already ahead of the curve and trying to push them further ahead. Now, I have nothing against gifted education -- I think it's important. But educating the entire population is different from id'ing the gifted and requires a different set of criteria and a different approach to meet those criteria. As the parent of a profoundly gifted kid, a common complaint about gifted education is that it's not really geared towards gifted kids. It's the basic education that every kid should be getting but because the education system is so bad, we only provide it to the "gifted". Which works for the moderately gifted but does pretty much nothing for the exceptionally and profoundly gifted.

So neither cohort gets what they need. The regular students get a subpar experience. The exceptionally gifted all get a subpar experience. And parents are forced to spend personal resources to ensure that thier kids get an appropriate education. Which makes it a resource driven environment, not an education driven one.

My $0.02

 

[Natural Order]

I omitted a word by accident so to be clear, I meant that most kids are not like the the thuggish little brats in OP, because most parents are NOT piles of shit.

I’m not saying parenting is exceptional these days, it seems to be the contrary, but it takes exceptionally bad parenting to have a kid in diapers cussing and hitting people.

It does not require an income above the poverty line or even two parents in the household to teach a child that young to be respectful or at least, not a thug. It does require some class though, but money can’t buy that.

You imagine the amount of vulgar rap/world star videos those kids are exposed to each and every day? Mind-numbing.....

 

[salamander]

Fix the funding issues, step up the qualifications standards for teachers and pay according to the newer, higher standard, adopt a mastery model to the classroom (a la the Shanghai method). That's it. It could be shortened to "Prioritize educating everyone, not rewarding the most resourced." If we did the first half, we'd find the best students regardless of parental resources.

Essentially, we have an education system that is geared towards the most resourced. More resourced communities get newer buildings, better qualified teachers, etc. But those communities also spend a significant amount of money outside of the classroom to reinforce and advance the education their kids are receiving. This means that the most resourced accrue greater educational rewards because of the resources, not the core ability.

We see this in sports as well. Take 2 kids with equal potential to be MLB pitchers. They both play Little League. One kid has a coach who played pro ball, the other kid has a coach who only played college ball. The difference in knowledge is going to have an impact. But that's not where it really matters. The kid with the pro coach - his parents are paying for a private pitching coach every week. The other kid is practicing with his dad who never played baseball as a kid. They're spending the same amount of hours practicing pitching but one kid is getting far better instruction as a result of having better resources to tap into.

Our education system works in a very similar way. The resource gap shows up in teacher qualification, school quality (labs, libraries), etc. Things that might get missed if people only look at total dollar spend.

I've become a fan of the Shanghai mastery model because I think it makes some effort to bypass this resource problem. In the Shanghai mastery model, the classroom doesn't move to a new concept until everyone in the classroom grasps the concept. Applied from kindergarten age onward, it minimizes situations where kids fall behind the classroom and then are dependent on their parents to shore up their education. Which works fine when the parents know the child is falling behind and have the resources to intervene. But at the younger ages like kindergarten and 1st grade, most parents don't know which concepts are supposed to be mastered vs. which ones are still developing.

Our model should apply mastery to the entire classroom, rather that identifying which kids are already ahead of the curve and trying to push them further ahead. Now, I have nothing against gifted education -- I think it's important. But educating the entire population is different from id'ing the gifted and requires a different set of criteria and a different approach to meet those criteria. As the parent of a profoundly gifted kid, a common complaint about gifted education is that it's not really geared towards gifted kids. It's the basic education that every kid should be getting but because the education system is so bad, we only provide it to the "gifted". Which works for the moderately gifted but does pretty much nothing for the exceptionally and profoundly gifted.

So neither cohort gets what they need. The regular students get a subpar experience. The exceptionally gifted all get a subpar experience. And parents are forced to spend personal resources to ensure that thier kids get an appropriate education. Which makes it a resource driven environment, not an education driven one.

My $0.02

Wow. I've even heard of the Shanghai model. It's seems encompass the philosophy behind the "it takes a village approach.

In your country does funding and setting the standards local, state or federal? Which building would someone write their "I'm mad as hell" letters too.

 

[PG29 red0 Jr]

Parents are not allowed to parent, police are not allowed to police.

Instead of teachers being able to punish a kid or smack them, these days they just tell the kid they should transition to a new gender.

When I was a child, this is what I needed and this is what I got:

 

[SanchoMF]

Well, the statistics out there don't support the claim that there is a lack of family values or understanding towards a caring family. The stats that attempt to measure those things do not find the discrepancy that is often brought up casually.

Too frequently, people look at outcomes but aren't aware of the actual causes. Usually because the research that actually looked at whether or not a cause is true is not well known or dismissed because it diverges too much from preconceived beliefs.

As for education -- fixing education shouldn't take more than 1-2 generations. Fix the funding issues, step up the qualifications standards for teachers and pay according to the newer, higher standard, adopt a mastery model to the classroom (a la the Shanghai method). That's it. It could be shortened to "Prioritize educating everyone, not rewarding the most resourced." If we did the first half, we'd find the best students regardless of parental resources.

I'd say that the thrift towards antisocial behaviour or delinquency itself is a manifestation for the lack of family values, either by the person committing those acts or the group they're a part of and for example the GSS stats show that it's 10% vs 17% in police altercations with non-intact/intact households and 5% vs 13% of intact/step- and single parent households in adolescent arrests.
There are plenty of more, albeit none labelled as 'family values' : they're rather measuring the difference of traditional vs non-traditional families and the results are somewhat as expected.
Traditional values have been absolutely exemplary in providing good citizens for centuries, only now much more recently created 'alternatives' have had somewhat dire impact on the societies and I for one can't understand why beat around the bush when it comes setting kids up for the best possible life ahead of them.
I think a lot of this applies to school and education as well : I agree that the 'baseline' should cover "everyone", but I think it should also cater needs of the best students and the special-ed for example. Nothing would be better than a great public educational system and where I come from, the best institutions are indeed public (from elementary until uni), big mix of all backgrounds.
Granted, to be get into the top uni you're supposed to have a fantastic report card OR go through exams, sometimes up to a week and depending on the program, the acceptance % might be a mere 2-3%.
So competition is quite necessary in near-meritocracy and the further a person is willing to go, the harder they will have to work or have a true natural talent for something.
We can't choose where we start, but I tend to think that the family unit is the most important starting point for the person 'currently' navigating through life and that moulds the perception of that person towards his/hers family as well.
So yeah, I don't disagree with you, but I think I see a different intervention..

 

[freakroor]

maybe those kids saw their mom get molested by police during a stop-and-frisk. you never know these days . i bet they have a good reason for being angry.

 

[panamaican]

Wow. I've even heard of the Shanghai model. It's seems encompass the philosophy behind the "it takes a village approach.

In your country does funding and setting the standards local, state or federal? Which building would someone write their "I'm mad as hell" letters too.

It's all 3 and none.

Funding is primarily done through local property taxes, essentially you pay for your school district based on how expensive your taxes are. Expensive counties generate more tax revenue for schools than less expensive counties. But the states chip in money as well. And the federal government provides funding if the state adopts specific criteria. For example, the federal government might want geometry taught at a certain age so they'll provide funding if the state agrees to make that part of the state-wide criteria. If a state doesn't agree with that criteria, they don't have to adopt it but they don't get the funding either.

This is what leads to debates around things like Common Core or No Child Left Behind. They are federal criteria that had to be adopted to qualify for federal money. The states want the money but they don't always want the criteria. Many times, the states feel strong armed into adopting the criteria because they need the money so badly. But this also means that there are universal standards beyond those grant based criteria. A school in Alabama can choose to teach subjects based on their own philosophy while a school in a neighboring state could teach the same subject based on a different philosophy. And that's before you get into how the individual school districts within the state can apply even more divergent philosophies from each other.

So, you could write your "I'm mad as hell" letters to state, fed and local but you'd have to write different letters because they all manage different parts of the funding and standards components from each other.