6 Baltimore public schools where not a single student tested "proficient"

[Anonymous]

It's a cycle perpetuated from generation to generation and yet, we somehow expect schools to perform miracles and somehow reach these kids. It's why teachers in low-income schools get so burnt out so quickly.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This investigative report is depressing.

http://foxbaltimore.com/news/project-baltimore/6-baltimore-schools-no-students-proficient-in-state-tests

It is 2017. How can Baltimore public schools still be so bad?

How many more generations of kids will go without an education before we, as a society, say enough is enough?

Because we, as a society, don't want to commit the resources to the things that would actually improve the chances of children born to poor black parents in cities (actually of children born to poor parents of any race in rural, suburban, or urban areas), and then we blame the schools for our own failure as a society.

How do we fix this specific problem in Baltimore?

I've got nearly two decades of antipoverty advocacy under my professional belt, and I don't have the answer...so I'm guessing you don't either, pp.

It's not the schools or the teachers. It's the students. And more directly: it's the way they've been raised. Their upbringing and home environment don't typically prioritize education and respect for authority. Just to clarify: there are outliers; not all the kids have parents who have checked out. But if none of the kids are proficient, then that says something that cannot be ignored.

Housing advocates will say the families just need housing. Food advocates will say they just need nutritious food. Kids obviously need both, but that won't improve test scores. Poverty advocates will say they need money. True, but that won't improve test scores.

Why are your kids thriving, DCUM? Think about everything you do to engage your kids, including setting expectations and boundaries. Parenting makes a difference. The home environment makes a difference. The neighborhood makes a difference. The cultural norm makes a difference.

Google the hot mess of a failed experiment by Zuckerberg in the Newark public school system. In short: fancy schools with cool technology and fabulous teachers can't fix the problems created at home. Sad, but true.

So what's the solution? I'm not sure. But I think we would have less people living in poverty and struggling academically if people delayed childbearing until their mid-20s...ideally equipped with at least a HS degree, a stable job, and a partner. All the research and data points to that, but unfortunately there's no way to legislate such things---and I haven't seen a US-based program that incentivizes such things (Africa has some programs that pay girls to prevent childbearing and continue their education).

Colorado did it. Free long acting reproductive contraception for low-income women and teens cut the unintended pregnancy and abortion rate by 50%. Colorado Republicans declined to further fund it because the program "did not align with their values". (the program eventually did end up receiving bridge funding and eventually state funding just last month).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

I agree 100%

You can't help people that don't want to help themselves. Welfare should come with mandatory volunteer hours if they aren't employed full time. Mandatory drug tests as well. I get them random for my employment, why not them?

The only thing our society should provide free is birth control. So much cheaper than the free abortions and free welfare for 18+ years for the unwanted child b

It does. Since the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996, aka "ending welfare as we know it". After which the proportion of poor families who receive cash assistance shrank enormously, and continues to shrink. Currently only about 23 in 100 poor families receive cash assistance from welfare nationwide -- ranging from 4 in 100 in Louisiana to 65 in 100 in California.

http://www.cbpp.org/research/family-income-support/tanf-reaching-few-poor-families

That doesn't look like a safety net to me.

As for, why not mandatory drug testing? Because it costs more than it saves; because people on public assistance use drugs at the same rate as people not on public assistance; and because it's unconstitutional.

Finally, how are children supposed to be helping themselves?

Bs. Obama changed those requirements that were put in by Clinton , himself a welfare baby who wanted to break the cycle. Clinton was pissed when obama did this. And when obama left office the numbers were through the roof of people on welfare.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This investigative report is depressing.

http://foxbaltimore.com/news/project-baltimore/6-baltimore-schools-no-students-proficient-in-state-tests

It is 2017. How can Baltimore public schools still be so bad?

How many more generations of kids will go without an education before we, as a society, say enough is enough?

Because we, as a society, don't want to commit the resources to the things that would actually improve the chances of children born to poor black parents in cities (actually of children born to poor parents of any race in rural, suburban, or urban areas), and then we blame the schools for our own failure as a society.

Wrong. As a society we have spent TRILLIONS of dollars on the war on poverty. All it has done is create a leeching dependent class of people that breed more leeching depending children.
I think we need to cut off all aid for 1.5 generations and let nature correct itself.

Bullseye but the DCUM audience in general is not the type to interested in real world facts. They prefer taxing us more, wasting $s, calling any who disagree as 'waging a war on children', and they go to sleep feeling good about their bleeding hearts. meanwhile they only exacerbate the problem but ignore their results and claim we need more resources. Thomas Sowell has written prolifically on this phenomenon.

Yes they are the same people that cry racist when you want illegal aliens deported.

[Anonymous]

In some developing countries, mission-based boarding schools are a very common method of delivering education. It sounds expensive, but if we are talking about populations where families are getting subsidies for housing and groceries already, then some of those payments could travel with the child to the boarding school, covering some of the costs. I'm generally not in favor of voucher systems because they hollow out existing systems. But I think it may be worth investing in such an experiment; there are foundations that may be interested in trying something new, as well.

[Anonymous]

All these people talking about boarding schools -- are you planning to send your children to boarding school?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:In some developing countries, mission-based boarding schools are a very common method of delivering education. It sounds expensive, but if we are talking about populations where families are getting subsidies for housing and groceries already, then some of those payments could travel with the child to the boarding school, covering some of the costs. I'm generally not in favor of voucher systems because they hollow out existing systems. But I think it may be worth investing in such an experiment; there are foundations that may be interested in trying something new, as well.

I agree that it would seem like a good idea.

Plus this way, the funds are going directly to helping the kids. The system as it currently is set up, is ridiculously wasteful and flawed.

The mom's (who have already proven themselves irresponsible by having more kids than they can support) are the ones who get the money and decide what to do with it. It gets spent on crappy food and weekly hair appointments for the mom.

A boarding school set up would benefit the kids more and could possibly have great results.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:All these people talking about boarding schools -- are you planning to send your children to boarding school?

That is a stupid comment.

If I am taking care of my child, if he is doing well in school, why would I send him to biarding school?

We're talking about kids who are NOT being taken care of.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:All these people talking about boarding schools -- are you planning to send your children to boarding school?

That is a stupid comment.

If I am taking care of my child, if he is doing well in school, why would I send him to biarding school?

We're talking about kids who are NOT being taken care of.

Ah yes. My children can stay home with me because I'm a good parent. It's those other people, over there, who are bad parents -- it's their children who have to be separated from their families.

I wonder how good a parent you or I would be, if we were coping the living and economic conditions that poor people in West Baltimore cope with?

[Anonymous]

If I lived there, I'd be smart enough not to make it worse by having kids.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:If I lived there, I'd be smart enough not to make it worse by having kids.

You don't say.

Even poor people want to have children. Even upper-middle-class highly-educated people have unplanned pregnancies.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:All these people talking about boarding schools -- are you planning to send your children to boarding school?

That is a stupid comment.

If I am taking care of my child, if he is doing well in school, why would I send him to biarding school?

We're talking about kids who are NOT being taken care of.

Ah yes. My children can stay home with me because I'm a good parent. It's those other people, over there, who are bad parents -- it's their children who have to be separated from their families.

I wonder how good a parent you or I would be, if we were coping the living and economic conditions that poor people in West Baltimore cope with?

Yes, that is it exactly.

If a kid is NOT being taken care of by their parents, how about we try to help out the kids? Or do you feel that lower income kids simply deserve being stuck in a situation that they have no control over?

Don't pretend like these moms have not made any choices. We all make bad choices, but to continue to have more and more kids when you cannot even take care of the kids that you have is irresponsible at least and child neglect at worse. That is exactly what happens.

Like the PP said, if I was living there, I would not be choosing to have more kids.

You make it seem like these women have no choice other than to churn out babies.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If I lived there, I'd be smart enough not to make it worse by having kids.

You don't say.

Even poor people want to have children. Even upper-middle-class highly-educated people have unplanned pregnancies.

The difference is that UMC families are making sure their kids get to school every day, on time. And the difference is that society spends a sh$t ton of money trying to support these women who continue to have kids who they cannot emotionally and financially support.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This investigative report is depressing.

http://foxbaltimore.com/news/project-baltimore/6-baltimore-schools-no-students-proficient-in-state-tests

It is 2017. How can Baltimore public schools still be so bad?

How many more generations of kids will go without an education before we, as a society, say enough is enough?

Because we, as a society, don't want to commit the resources to the things that would actually improve the chances of children born to poor black parents in cities (actually of children born to poor parents of any race in rural, suburban, or urban areas), and then we blame the schools for our own failure as a society.

Wrong. As a society we have spent TRILLIONS of dollars on the war on poverty. All it has done is create a leeching dependent class of people that breed more leeching depending children.
I think we need to cut off all aid for 1.5 generations and let nature correct itself.

I agree 100%

You can't help people that don't want to help themselves. Welfare should come with mandatory volunteer hours if they aren't employed full time. Mandatory drug tests as well. I get them random for my employment, why not them?

The only thing our society should provide free is birth control. So much cheaper than the free abortions and free welfare for 18+ years for the unwanted child b

I know people will think I'm a monster, but I've often thought it would be better if the government rewarded people on welfare for not having kids. It just makes sense that if you can't afford a child you shouldn't have one and the government could encourage that behavior financially and reduce the number of kids living nearly hopeless lives in poverty...

I totally agree. They should pay people for getting BC shots.

Totally agree. This is a fantastic idea!

As long as it is voluntary, how could this be a bad idea?? Except for the Catholics, who would protest this?

At lot of people would. Such measures would be translated as racist and as extermination of blacks.
In fact, in some circles planned parenthood was accused of having a goal of aborting black babies.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:All these people talking about boarding schools -- are you planning to send your children to boarding school?

That is a stupid comment.

If I am taking care of my child, if he is doing well in school, why would I send him to biarding school?

We're talking about kids who are NOT being taken care of.

Ah yes. My children can stay home with me because I'm a good parent. It's those other people, over there, who are bad parents -- it's their children who have to be separated from their families.

I wonder how good a parent you or I would be, if we were coping the living and economic conditions that poor people in West Baltimore cope with?

Yes, that is it exactly.

If a kid is NOT being taken care of by their parents, how about we try to help out the kids? Or do you feel that lower income kids simply deserve being stuck in a situation that they have no control over?

Don't pretend like these moms have not made any choices. We all make bad choices, but to continue to have more and more kids when you cannot even take care of the kids that you have is irresponsible at least and child neglect at worse. That is exactly what happens.

Like the PP said, if I was living there, I would not be choosing to have more kids.

You make it seem like these women have no choice other than to churn out babies.

NP

I agree that the parents have made bad choices- to continue having kids and neglecting them- and that intervention that directly helps the children should be developed and implemented.
I disagree that you'd make different choices if you were living there- as in, if you'd grown up there. You'd be a product of the same dysfunctional mentality. There are exceptions, of course, but in all likelihood, you, and I, and the PP, would not turn out to be exceptions.