Page 5 of 16 FirstFirst ... 3456715 ... LastLast
Results 41 to 50 of 152

Thread: The Democratic Party has lost its mind — and its soul

  1. #41
    Account not Activated
    Join Date
    Jun 2015
    Location
    Tennessee
    Posts
    2,594
    Rep Power
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by Grumpy Old Man View Post
    I'm a simple man, Though in the 7th grade I was tested at a university level for English and several other disciplines. Growth vs Proficiency: Shleprock has advocated growth for years and how has that worked out for him and his students?
    Yea, he's ADVOCATED for it, but it hasn't happened. The majority conservative members of congress consistently override him.



    Quote Originally Posted by Grumpy Old Man View Post
    Being a military man, every task learned is based on proficiency, pass or fail. The fact is, it is the best education system in our Nation; our military's ability to train to proficiency peoples from all walks of life and their challenges.
    Sure, because their need is direct and simple, and they don't care about the ones they kick out; you need people who can follow orders and take apart a rifle, and not much else. That's good for soldiers and factory workers.

    You can't train artists that way; you can't train writers that way; you can't train scientists or entrepreneurs or any other field that requires creativity or critical thinking.

    And what about the ones who fall through the cracks? The high and low performers who get ignored by proficiency metrics? You are abandoning both the most useful (high performers) and most in need (low performers) students.


    Quote Originally Posted by Grumpy Old Man View Post
    My point here is not what educators have been debating in their system; we know it has failed too many.
    Um, how do we know that? Again, test scores haven't dropped, and graduation rates have gone up. What's the problem?


    Quote Originally Posted by Grumpy Old Man View Post
    My point is this hook, if you will, is of no consequence; parents and children should decide what works for them.
    Yes, because parents and children are natural experts in the field of education...?!


    Quote Originally Posted by Grumpy Old Man View Post
    Given choices, they can determine which is best and which curriculum leads to their thriving.
    O-K, so why is the entire conservative education platform based around removing choices? These kids have one choice, and you're trying to take it away!


    Quote Originally Posted by Grumpy Old Man View Post
    Be it a Performance standard, or a growth standard. I'd argue the latter is what has led to our problems.
    What problems?!


    Quote Originally Posted by Grumpy Old Man View Post
    This is why this woman was nominated. To think outside the box.
    This woman was elected because she contributed millions of dollars to the GOP and her corporation represents the ideal conservative plan for public education: To get rid of it.

    Charter schools are, across the board, the worst schools in the country. Only about 15% of student performance can even be linked to the school they attend, but charter schools get to cherry-pick the very best students, and then only manage to achieve mediocre results. They are taking the best and the brightest and turning them into the average.


    Quote Originally Posted by Grumpy Old Man View Post
    This whole debate from the Dems is about their constituents, which are the massive teacher's unions who support them and provide them money. Look up California and their recent statewide meetings over the last few years, it will illuminate what they are about.
    California? The state which has chronically underfunded schools because of their 2/3 majority rule in the state house, which allows the 40% conservative bloc to kill anything that might help their education system? That California?

    How about Massachusetts? How about New Jersey? How about Maryland, Vermont, New Hampshire, Connecticut, New York, and Minnesota? They have the best schools in the country; they have the highest per student spending in the country; they are among the most liberal states in the country. The worst schools tend to be the least well funded (exception: Washington, D.C., but again, congress interferes with them) and are overwhelmingly conservative.

    "Correlation does not imply causation, but it does nod its head and wink suggestively."

  2. #42
    Senior Member Deidre's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2014
    Posts
    4,902
    Blog Entries
    12
    Rep Power
    64
    I have a friend who teaches middle school and she said that one of the fundamental problems with public education today isn't that the schools are without money, or losing programs, etc...it's that many parents don't seem to care about their kids' education. She will schedule parent-teacher conferences, and half the parents don't show. (She hears other teachers complaining about the same issue)

    The parents seem very busy with their dating/sex lives to be bothered with the fact that they have kids to raise. She sees it all the time, mom has a different boyfriend every other month, and it affects the kid's performance in school. Dad is off doing the same thing. So, the government can throw money at the educational system, but if many kids are going home to parents who aren't around, or just don't care about their kids...then, the kids will continue to suffer. It's one of the biggest differences if you compare the US with say, Japan. Granted, there's a lot of pressure in Japan for kids to get good grades, so much so, some are committing suicide. But, the parents take a leading role in their kids' education. I think you see more concerned parents if the kids are in honors classes according to my teacher friend, or if they're going to private school.

    It's not the government's job to raise people's kids and get them a good education. It's the parents' jobs, and the kids themselves have to care, too.
    Last edited by Deidre; 02-17-2017 at 02:04 PM.

  3. #43
    Account not Activated
    Join Date
    Jun 2015
    Location
    Tennessee
    Posts
    2,594
    Rep Power
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by Manalysis View Post
    Well, showing that more women got into the system is a non-negligible fact on which to construct the argument, innit?
    And I'm not forgetting anything, I just did not mention it. Cartesian approach, break up into discrete problems, one at a time, and all that.
    But now that it has been mentioned, this widening of the student body (and this is _not_ 'intellectual fat shaming') was of course an important motivator for change.
    With uni ed being reserved for the sharp end of the IQ wedge, of course the approach to teaching and curriculum reflected students' capacity for abstract matters.
    Another factor that pushes in the same direction.
    My point was that you cannot separate the influx of women and the influx of middle class men into the ranks of the college educated because it happened at roughly the same time, which makes it extremely difficult to distinguish which had what effect.


    Quote Originally Posted by Manalysis View Post
    Well, if you say so. I don't know that much US statistics.
    The reason I say it is because all I have read seems to indicate that female domination is indeed the case.
    It is supposedly total in kinderfarten and the lower grades, but perhaps the female listing is less prononced the higher up the ladder one goes.
    This is an issue that can be simply solved, if anyone out there has access to relevant numbers or statistics.
    Elementary school is almost entirely female. High schools have 42% male teachers. College professors are majority male. 20% of school superintendents are female, and 52% of school principals (although elementary schools tend to be smaller, so there are more of them...).

    I don't think that there is a good argument to be made from those statistics


    Quote Originally Posted by Manalysis View Post
    Yes, but the issue is not really Teacher vs The State as such, but the conditions boys face in school today.
    Um, it is when the state is the party responsible for those conditions.

    Teachers weren't the ones asking for the police to come arrest students for minor behavior infractions; that was the government insisting on stationing police in our schools. Teachers weren't responsible for the "Zero Tolerance" policy, that was "tough on crime" conservative politicians ramming it through.


    Quote Originally Posted by Manalysis View Post
    And I'm not certain that the quality of education for boys has not decreased in quality.
    Test scores haven't budged and the graduation rate has gone up.

    Now, just the idea of only using test scores to measure education was an idiot thing to do, but that was, again, back in the 1980s, and a fundamentally conservative idea, specifically aimed at impeding the ability of educators to teach critical thinking skills.

    But that has affected both boys and girls.


    Quote Originally Posted by Manalysis View Post
    There is a high drop-out rate, and not only in the US - which should eliminate most aspects of the politics discussion - but all over the West, including here, this dangerous nest of red vipery.
    A well-funded public sector, including schools etc. etc, but still boys drop out. The common denominator? (It begins with an "f".)
    Well, our graduation rate has gone up, and most of Europe has a higher rate, so...?

    http://globalpublicsquare.blogs.cnn....-of-the-world/


    Quote Originally Posted by Manalysis View Post
    Ooowwwh .... bad, bad SST .... playing silly semantics games ....
    Yes, "retaining the status quo" is of course the dictionary definition of the primary meaning of the word, but the minutest scruple of pragmatics suffices to see that this is not what people use the term for.
    As a category of political science or even sociology, it is a label for the establishment of the political right,
    To profess ignorance here is ingenious; so clever it's stupid.
    You risk making Matrix right ...
    Aaaaaand you know this.
    And if it were a matter of pure tradition, I might agree, but I didn't say tradition, did I? I said, "Status Quo," as in, "the people who are currently (like, just got there) at the top want to set things up so that it stays that way," and that IS the genuine heart of ALL political conservatism, and you deny it only at the cost of a very sarcastic reply


    Quote Originally Posted by Manalysis View Post
    Terminology-wise this appears to be one these US particularities; but the skeleton is familiar:
    Do we want to educate humans, or tiny cogwheels for the big machine? Teach them how to think, or what to think?
    Lke must burning issues, IMO these are false oppositions, like "nature or nurture?", when in reality you can't have one without the other, they can only be separated violently, the grow together, dependent on each other, etc. etc.
    Right, but as I mentioned, just the act of connecting funding to standardized tests eliminated an entire subject area from our education system! It's not that critical thinking skills don't develop while learning other things, it's that critical thinking is a very subtle concept, and if it doesn't get clearly taught with the same repetition as other subjects, it doesn't develop nearly as well.

    And, of course, it is the primary skill that comes to mind from a conservative viewpoint under the heading of, "dangerous for little people to know."


    Quote Originally Posted by Manalysis View Post
    Yes ... that was what I was agreeing to in my previous.
    But is "The solution, of course, is to provide scholarships for vocational schools; we have a dire shortage of plumbers in this country" the reply to my "the percentage of boys getting an education may be declining",
    or did you just overlook that last sentence?
    No, I ignored it, because it is patently false. More people than ever go to college, overall, such that even the slow decline in the percentage of college students that are male is lower than the growth rate. I.e. more males are going to college than ever before.

    To be fair, though, whether or not that constitutes them "getting an education" is subject to debate, as our colleges are being dumbed-down and ideologically-purified (and not by liberals).

    Which is why I say we need more scholarships to trade schools; they actually teach something, and the jobs are available, decently-paying, and ideally suited to common male strengths.


    Quote Originally Posted by Manalysis View Post
    I'd be willing to do without the anecdotes, even, and just stick with the facts.
    Then how do you determine the effects?


    Quote Originally Posted by Manalysis View Post
    Isn't that at the core of the mystery we here at AVfM are trying to unravel?
    Women hold little formal power, yet manage to turn e.g. extremely conservative - in the dictionary definition - institutions like the courts to their advantage, and similarly on many other social sectors.
    There's no need for them to elect a Female Feminist Imperatrix to dictate development, it seems to seep in like rainwater into a sleeping bag.
    My guess is gynocentrism, in some guise; but that is so vague as to be useless, until we can identify the actual processes at work.
    ....and here's another conversation we've only had 5 times. Let me try it a different way:

    The Poisoned Chalice.

    Let's say you are a clever conservative politician; change is coming, it is inevitable, but in your opinion, misguided, and once it happens, you know that disaster will ensue and everyone will regret it and want things back the way they were. Why not just make that all happen faster and get it over with? Make the change happen, but intentionally take it so far that it causes problems and incites backlash.

    And heck, if you're going to go through that much trouble, you might as well make some political capital out of it, so find someone who can profit out of the situation and dun them for campaign donations. Witness our private prison industry.


    Quote Originally Posted by Manalysis View Post
    But, really .... I know you like a good polemic, but I'd hate to see you defend a particular corner just because that's where you entered the ring.
    Um, you do understand that this entire conversation has been a change in my view, right? The education gap was one of my concerns, I just happened to have done some research lately because of the DeVos issue.


    Quote Originally Posted by Manalysis View Post
    How about once more, from the top:
    In your view, the education sector has no gender problems, merely funding problems, is that a more or less correct summary?
    I know it's rather brief, but in general, with the relevant reservations, is that your view?
    Almost; the involvement of the criminal justice system into our schools overwhelmingly affects boys, but again, that's not coming FROM the education sector, it just happens to be involved in it.


    Quote Originally Posted by Manalysis View Post
    The aim of the question os to focus on gender problems, if any. I'll grant you all the rest.
    If you see any, let's focus on that.

    It is, of course, moot if you do not see any kind og gender bias in education.
    That is a POV which few here share. Are we wrong? Where did we go wrong?

    M

    M
    You went wrong the same way many feminists do: You saw a gender disparity and lept to the conclusion that there was some kind of nefarious plot behind it, when in fact it is just a natural consequence of the current state of affairs.

    Now, there is an argument to be made that any gender disparity warrants action, regardless of the reasons for it.... but that would apply to such things as the wage gap, as well.

  4. #44
    Account not Activated
    Join Date
    Jun 2015
    Location
    Tennessee
    Posts
    2,594
    Rep Power
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by Deidre View Post
    I have a friend who teaches middle school and she said that one of the fundamental problems with public education today isn't that the schools are without money, or losing programs, etc...it's that many parents don't seem to care about their kids' education. She will schedule parent-teacher conferences, and half the parents don't show. (She hears other teachers complaining about the same issue)
    That's interesting, although it makes me wonder how many of those parents are both working full time jobs?


    Quote Originally Posted by Deidre View Post
    The parents seem very busy with their dating/sex lives to be bothered with the fact that they have kids to raise. She sees it all the time, mom has a different boyfriend every other month, and it affects the kid's performance in school. Dad is off doing the same thing. So, the government can throw money at the educational system, but if many kids are going home to parents who aren't around, or just don't care about their kids...then, the kids will continue to suffer. It's one of the biggest differences if you compare the US with say, Japan. Granted, there's a lot of pressure in Japan for kids to get good grades, so much so, some are committing suicide. But, the parents take a leading role in their kids' education. I think you see more concerned parents if the kids are in honors classes according to my teacher friend, or if they're going to private school.

    It's not the government's job to raise people's kids and get them a good education. It's the parents' jobs, and the kids themselves have to care, too.
    Well, we do have twice Japan's divorce rate...

    But how do you fix any of that? "It's not the government's job;" then whose is it?

    I feel the same way about that comment that I do when I hear it at work: "That's not my job." That's lazy.

    And where does it lead to? You get Brazil, where special police units patrol the streets of Rio de Janeiro killing feral children.

    http://www.telesurtv.net/english/new...1013-0044.html

    They don't give numbers, but it looks like they kill about 2,000 children (under 12) each year in summary executions in the street.

    But hey, thank God abortion is mostly illegal and really hard to get in Brazil, huh? >:|

  5. #45
    Senior Member Maxx's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Posts
    5,623
    Blog Entries
    33
    Rep Power
    89
    Quote Originally Posted by Manalysis View Post
    .
    The reason I say it is because all I have read seems to indicate that female domination is indeed the case
    The female domination especially in early years is a major problem but it's the tip of a wider iceberg. Both male and female teachers at all levels are being taught to identify many of the natural NORMAL and TYPICAL ways in which boys and men develop and learn as a pathology to be systematically targeted.

    Now take the male desire to 'pull things apart'.

    That CAN result in a boy who 'breaks stuff' but it's also the seed from which experimentation and innovation and many other great traits and skills grows.

    Women teachers are gonna be naturally less inclined to identify or understand that spark, because to put it bluntly most women don't tend to have it.

    It's a male thing. It's TYPICAL of male. A TYPICAL in females.

    That doesn't mean a male teacher who has come through the same system as his female counter part is going to be any more predisposed to recognize and nurture (instead of crushing) a spark of male potential like that just because he's male himself.

    The SYSTEM is teaching teachers (male and female) that boys who challenge things need to have that tendency punished out of them, boys who pull things apart with their hands need to be conditioned to STOP IT. Boys of refuse to take what's given to them at face value and question everything need to be trained and medicated and punished until they STOP.

    In short they are being taught to systematically crush the potential of boys and men at every turn. It's a vicious and tragic cycle. The more of a boy's natural learning tendencies are misdiagnosed as a pathology (by teachers operating on the basis of flawed feminist ideological indoctrination that forms a core part of their training) the more the boy is punished the more he's punished the more he acts out.

    The more he acts out the more extremely and drastically the system moves against him.

    Eventually medicating him with doses of powerful psycho active drugs that PERMANENTLY damage his developing brain.

    At which point he becomes a CASUALTY of feminist and progressive education reform that feminists and progressives then go head and use as a statistic in support of more of same shit that fucked the poor boy up in the first place.

    Quote Originally Posted by Manalysis View Post
    .
    A well-funded public sector, including schools etc. etc, but still boys drop out. The common denominator? (It begins with an "f".)
    Exactly this. The common denominator is feminist ideology and doctrine.

    As usual they employ staggering double standards. On one hand they argue that there ARE female-specific ways of learning and they modify education at all levels to better accommodate them...because 'equality'.

    But on the flip side when education system where the balanced is tipped too far one way (i.e ALL of them in the WEST) start failing men and boys these same people BLAME THE BOYS THEMSELVES.

    And sadistically start sanctioning the mass medication and punishment of them.
    "Being a cunt doesn't make you wrong." ComradePrescott

  6. #46
    Senior Member Maxx's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Posts
    5,623
    Blog Entries
    33
    Rep Power
    89
    Quote Originally Posted by StrongSilentType View Post
    Sure, because their need is direct and simple, and they don't care about the ones they kick out; you need people who can follow orders and take apart a rifle, and not much else. That's good for soldiers and factory workers.

    You can't train artists that way; you can't train writers that way; you can't train scientists or entrepreneurs or any other field that requires creativity or critical thinking.
    1) You can't systematically train writers or artists period. All you can do is not UN-TRAIN by destroying the natural tendencies that (can) lead to proficiency in these areas.
    2) Writers and artists don't make the country/world go round.
    3) The qualities that do lend themselves to creativity, innovation, experimentation etc are predominately MALE BRAIN SPECIFIC
    4) educators in the west are trained to systematically TARGET and diagnosis male brain specific learning tendency as a pathology.
    5) A pathology related to the wider concept of 'toxic masculinity'
    6) 'Toxic masculinity' is a term feminists use to identify and target male brain specific learning tendencies and identify them as pathology and evidence of the 'wrong kind' of maleness. That we (teachers/progressive/good people generally etc) need to help boys 'progress' and 'evolve' beyond.
    7) The people who support this ideology and have pushed it far into the education systems of the west at all levels are/call themselves 'progressives'

    What are these male brain specific tendencies -

    There's plenty of them. Let's focus on a few that make good writers and artists and/or scientists -

    Hands on practical learning.
    Boys learn by doing. Girls learn by listening. Boys that want to DO but get made to sit still and listen get bored. Bored boys flick people ears or gaze out of windows or draw cartoons of naked girls in the back of their books. FEMINIST label one or all of these things evidence of toxic masculinity.

    Competition.
    Boys thrive on competition. Girls are naturally conflict averse. You remove the competition the girls feel more 'comfortable' the boys get more bored. See above.

    Pulling things apart.
    Boys pull things apart in order to understand how they operate. Girls don't. When boys pull the wrong things a part instead of sitting still and being spoon fed information from a person in authority over them they get labeled as disruptive. Their natural scientific curiosity (that might one day make them the next Einstein is misdiagnosed by some retarded feminist as evidence of DESTRUCTIVE TENDENCIES. Boys that 'DESTROY THINGS' are 'toxically masculine' they need medication and social engineering to make them more evolved...right? At least according to feminist they do.

    Question Authority.
    Questioning the established orthodoxy is the mother of all innovation. Innovation of thought. Scientific. Creative. When you TELL a girl something she looks left and looks right. If her peers are ACCEPTING what they are being told she can be largely relied upon to do the same. When you TELL a boy something he crosses his arms and says SHOW ME. IF you can't show him you are right his respect for your authority takes a dent. According to feminists boys who don't automatically respect the authority of their teachers need to be conditioned to do so. If the teacher is female heck it might even be evidence that the boy as 'a problem with women in authority'. You can bet your ass feminists and liberals are gonna wanna beat that tendency outta the poor boy.

    And so we arrive at an education system FUNDAMENTALLY hostile to men and boys.
    Last edited by Maxx; 02-17-2017 at 06:53 PM.
    "Being a cunt doesn't make you wrong." ComradePrescott

  7. #47
    Senior Member Deidre's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2014
    Posts
    4,902
    Blog Entries
    12
    Rep Power
    64
    Quote Originally Posted by StrongSilentType View Post
    That's interesting, although it makes me wonder how many of those parents are both working full time jobs?
    That might account for why some can't make the parent/teacher conference, but a lot of kids are struggling with coming from divorced homes, and not seeing their parents enough, it's a lot of stress on kids to also have to keep up with their schoolwork.

    Well, we do have twice Japan's divorce rate...

    But how do you fix any of that? "It's not the government's job;" then whose is it?
    The parents' job to guide their kids, to help their kids. The government isn't a surrogate parent.

    I feel the same way about that comment that I do when I hear it at work: "That's not my job." That's lazy.
    Yet, the type of person who relies on the government for their quality of life, probably says that more so than the person who doesn't.

    And where does it lead to? You get Brazil, where special police units patrol the streets of Rio de Janeiro killing feral children.
    Not sure why you're making such a huge leap.

    http://www.telesurtv.net/english/new...1013-0044.html

    They don't give numbers, but it looks like they kill about 2,000 children (under 12) each year in summary executions in the street.

    But hey, thank God abortion is mostly illegal and really hard to get in Brazil, huh? >:|
    lol Are you saying that legalizing abortion would solve their problems?

    I don't understand your thinking, you tend to look at the government as a white knight. Well, feminists do too...and look where that leaves most men. So be careful what you wish for, SST.

  8. #48
    Senior Member mr_e's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2015
    Location
    Eastern USA
    Posts
    6,617
    Blog Entries
    6
    Rep Power
    59
    Quote Originally Posted by TheNarrator View Post
    IQ isnt bullshit.
    whats bullshit is trying to get a co-relation between IQ and schooling.

    IQ does not measure studiousness it measures intelligence quotient. or deductive reasoning... nothing to do with school whatsoever.

    Deductive reasoning is also based on education-- not necessarily schooling, but exposure to problem-solving techniques.
    FEMINISM is a HATE GROUP - Feminists are HATEFUL PEOPLE
    It's time to call it out for what it is.



    The World of Men - Men's Rights / MGTOW / Sites of Interest to Men

    http://forums.avoiceformen.com/showt...nterest-to-Men

  9. #49
    Senior Member mr_e's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2015
    Location
    Eastern USA
    Posts
    6,617
    Blog Entries
    6
    Rep Power
    59
    Quote Originally Posted by Manalysis View Post
    Well, showing that more women got into the system is a non-negligible fact on which to construct the argument, innit?
    And I'm not forgetting anything, I just did not mention it. Cartesian approach, break up into discrete problems, one at a time, and all that.
    But now that it has been mentioned, this widening of the student body (and this is _not_ 'intellectual fat shaming') was of course an important motivator for change.
    With uni ed being reserved for the sharp end of the IQ wedge, of course the approach to teaching and curriculum reflected students' capacity for abstract matters.
    Another factor that pushes in the same direction.


    Well, if you say so. I don't know that much US statistics.
    The reason I say it is because all I have read seems to indicate that female domination is indeed the case.
    It is supposedly total in kinderfarten and the lower grades, but perhaps the female listing is less prononced the higher up the ladder one goes.
    This is an issue that can be simply solved, if anyone out there has access to relevant numbers or statistics.


    Yes, but the issue is not really Teacher vs The State as such, but the conditions boys face in school today.
    And I'm not certain that the quality of education for boys has not decreased in quality.
    There is a high drop-out rate, and not only in the US - which should eliminate most aspects of the politics discussion - but all over the West, including here, this dangerous nest of red vipery.
    A well-funded public sector, including schools etc. etc, but still boys drop out. The common denominator? (It begins with an "f".)
    M

    Do Teachers Really Discriminate Against Boys?
    http://ideas.time.com/2013/02/06/do-...-against-boys/

    Worries about the declining academic performance of boys, a topic of increasing alarm this past decade, have intensified recently. It seems that boys are being judged both unduly harshly and leniently at school. A new study on gender disparities in elementary-school performance — the first study to examine both objective and subjective performance — found that boys were given lower grades than girls, even in cases (such as math and science) where their test scores were either equal to or higher than the girls’ test scores.

    It seems like out-and-out discrimination, except there is an interesting wrinkle: teachers didn’t downgrade boys who had identical test scores to girls if they seemed to share the girls’ positive attitude toward learning. In fact, the opposite seemed to occur: the well-socialized boys received a small grade “bonus” for their good behavior relative to other boys, suggesting that teachers may be overcompensating when they encounter boys whose behavior exceeds expectations. In other words, boys who match girls on both test scores and behavior get better grades than girls do, but boys who don’t are graded more harshly. Which means that the issue of what to do with underperforming boys just got a lot more complicated.
    FEMINISM is a HATE GROUP - Feminists are HATEFUL PEOPLE
    It's time to call it out for what it is.



    The World of Men - Men's Rights / MGTOW / Sites of Interest to Men

    http://forums.avoiceformen.com/showt...nterest-to-Men

  10. #50
    Senior Member mr_e's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2015
    Location
    Eastern USA
    Posts
    6,617
    Blog Entries
    6
    Rep Power
    59
    Quote Originally Posted by Deidre View Post
    I have a friend who teaches middle school and she said that one of the fundamental problems with public education today isn't that the schools are without money, or losing programs, etc...it's that many parents don't seem to care about their kids' education. She will schedule parent-teacher conferences, and half the parents don't show. (She hears other teachers complaining about the same issue)

    The parents seem very busy with their dating/sex lives to be bothered with the fact that they have kids to raise. She sees it all the time, mom has a different boyfriend every other month, and it affects the kid's performance in school. Dad is off doing the same thing. So, the government can throw money at the educational system, but if many kids are going home to parents who aren't around, or just don't care about their kids...then, the kids will continue to suffer. It's one of the biggest differences if you compare the US with say, Japan. Granted, there's a lot of pressure in Japan for kids to get good grades, so much so, some are committing suicide. But, the parents take a leading role in their kids' education. I think you see more concerned parents if the kids are in honors classes according to my teacher friend, or if they're going to private school.

    It's not the government's job to raise people's kids and get them a good education. It's the parents' jobs, and the kids themselves have to care, too.

    It could also be that with the staggering prevalence of Single-Parent households that the parent(s) are so busy working to keep a roof over their kids heads that things like Parent-Teacher conferences fall further down the list of priorities. It's easy for a teacher to complain that parents don't care-- they're not the one having to hold down a second job to make ends meet.

    I'm not sure that the articles below are the best references, although the second one is directly from the US Census report. The first one cites "wage inequality" as one of the reasons that women have a higher poverty rate. And thus I presume that the rest of the article is similarly biased when possible.

    But nontheless, I think that in any case, being a single parent places extra challenges on being attentive to other areas of a kid's life. I know that my wife and I work out between us who is going to attend the Parent-Teacher conferences. We both do when we can. Other times she will do it herself, or I will do it myself because of job conflicts. I can only imagine that would be worse for a single parent.



    Single Mother Statistics
    https://singlemotherguide.com/single-mother-statistics/
    Once largely limited to poor women and minorities, single motherhood is now becoming the new “norm”.

    This prevalence is due in part to the growing trend of children born outside marriage — a societal trend that was virtually unheard of decades ago.

    About 4 out 10 children were born to unwed mothers.1 Nearly two-thirds are born to mothers under the age of 30.2

    Of all single-parent families in the U.S., single mothers make up the majority.

    According to U.S. Census Bureau,3 out of about 12 million single parent families in 2015, more than 80% were headed by single mothers.

    Today 1 in 4 children under the age of 18 — a total of about 17.4 million — are being raised without a father4 and nearly half (45%) live below the poverty line.5

    For those living with father only, about 21% live in poverty. In contrast, among children living with both parents, only 13% are counted as poor.


    Census Brief: Children With Single Parents-- How They Fare:
    https://www.census.gov/prod/3/97pubs/cb-9701.pdf
    FEMINISM is a HATE GROUP - Feminists are HATEFUL PEOPLE
    It's time to call it out for what it is.



    The World of Men - Men's Rights / MGTOW / Sites of Interest to Men

    http://forums.avoiceformen.com/showt...nterest-to-Men

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •