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

[Anonymous]

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.

Lead in homes all over Baltimore. It's pathetic that that has never been fixed.

[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).

+1,000,000

You just described what many of us who grew up in "mixed" neighborhoods already know. My school in the Deep South was about half and half AA and other, mostly white (I am a person of color but not AA).

It is a position of great privilege to be so naive as to think the problems within the AA communities can be fixed by "better" teachers, more money, free technology, yadda yadda. It shows you are so sheltered you have no clue what the hell you are talking about.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Well, mostly. But you're shifting the goalposts here.

Upper middle-class families are making sure their kids get to school on time every day because they have the economic resources to do so. Poor families do not have these resources -- by definition. That doesn't mean that upper-middle-class parents are good parents and poor parents are bad parents. It means that upper-middle-class parents have more economic resources than poor parents.

So one possible policy approach would be to make sure that poor parents have the economic resources necessary for making sure their kids get to school in time every day.

Another possible policy approach would be to separate the children of poor parents from their families. The US has actually done this in the past -- for example, with the Indian boarding schools. How did that work out?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

What data do you have about family size and fertility rates among "these women"? Or are you just assuming that obviously they're having piles of babies, everybody knows that?


Now, what percentage of women

[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.

I had an unplanned pregnancy myself. I would've never had my son had I not been able to take care of him. These people cannot afford to atke care of themselves. They have no business continuing with a pregnancy (many times over) when they cannot afford it. Just like I don't buy a Lexus because I can't afford it. I don't spend a week in the Caribbean because I cannot afford it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

I had an unplanned pregnancy myself. I would've never had my son had I not been able to take care of him. These people cannot afford to atke care of themselves. They have no business continuing with a pregnancy (many times over) when they cannot afford it. Just like I don't buy a Lexus because I can't afford it. I don't spend a week in the Caribbean because I cannot afford it.

1. Buying a Lexus
2. Spending a week in the Caribbean
3. Having a child

One of these things is not like the other.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

I had an unplanned pregnancy myself. I would've never had my son had I not been able to take care of him. These people cannot afford to atke care of themselves. They have no business continuing with a pregnancy (many times over) when they cannot afford it. Just like I don't buy a Lexus because I can't afford it. I don't spend a week in the Caribbean because I cannot afford it.

1. Buying a Lexus
2. Spending a week in the Caribbean
3. Having a child

One of these things is not like the other.

DP here - how is it different?

Some people live within their means and recognize limits. Some people feel that they can do whatever the f$ck they want without consequence because the taxpayers will subsidize them having more kids.

PP can't afford a Lexus so she doesn't get one. She knew she couldn't support 6 babies, so she did not have them.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

What data do you have about family size and fertility rates among "these women"? Or are you just assuming that obviously they're having piles of babies, everybody knows that?


Now, what percentage of women

Well I posted before because I work at a health clinic where we see a ton of lower income women who do churn out babies. So I can only speak from my experience.

[Anonymous]

Well I posted before because I work at a health clinic where we see a ton of lower income women who do churn out babies. So I can only speak from my experience.



But that's like a podiatrist posting about how everybody has foot problems. Or an oncologist posting about how everybody has cancer.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

I had an unplanned pregnancy myself. I would've never had my son had I not been able to take care of him. These people cannot afford to atke care of themselves. They have no business continuing with a pregnancy (many times over) when they cannot afford it. Just like I don't buy a Lexus because I can't afford it. I don't spend a week in the Caribbean because I cannot afford it.

1. Buying a Lexus
2. Spending a week in the Caribbean
3. Having a child

One of these things is not like the other.

DP here - how is it different?

Some people live within their means and recognize limits. Some people feel that they can do whatever the f$ck they want without consequence because the taxpayers will subsidize them having more kids.

PP can't afford a Lexus so she doesn't get one. She knew she couldn't support 6 babies, so she did not have them.

You're asking how a child is different from a fancy car or a nice vacation.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Well, mostly. But you're shifting the goalposts here.

Upper middle-class families are making sure their kids get to school on time every day because they have the economic resources to do so. Poor families do not have these resources -- by definition. That doesn't mean that upper-middle-class parents are good parents and poor parents are bad parents. It means that upper-middle-class parents have more economic resources than poor parents.

So one possible policy approach would be to make sure that poor parents have the economic resources necessary for making sure their kids get to school in time every day.

Another possible policy approach would be to separate the children of poor parents from their families. The US has actually done this in the past -- for example, with the Indian boarding schools. How did that work out?

We have been doing this and it appears that it is not a cure all. Does it make sense to continue to do something that has been proven not to work?

We have been supporting Head Start programs for years. In MoCo, low income kids get free preK and also get bussed to school for free if needed. My neighbor teaches at one of these locations and often times, the parents just don't bother sending the kids.

What happens when we have made it economically feasible for the kids to attend school and get there on time, but the parents still don't send their kids. How do you propose that we hold these parents accountable?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

I had an unplanned pregnancy myself. I would've never had my son had I not been able to take care of him. These people cannot afford to atke care of themselves. They have no business continuing with a pregnancy (many times over) when they cannot afford it. Just like I don't buy a Lexus because I can't afford it. I don't spend a week in the Caribbean because I cannot afford it.

1. Buying a Lexus
2. Spending a week in the Caribbean
3. Having a child

One of these things is not like the other.

DP here - how is it different?

Some people live within their means and recognize limits. Some people feel that they can do whatever the f$ck they want without consequence because the taxpayers will subsidize them having more kids.

PP can't afford a Lexus so she doesn't get one. She knew she couldn't support 6 babies, so she did not have them.

You're asking how a child is different from a fancy car or a nice vacation.

No, you're just being obtuse.

We're saying that every family decides what they can and cannot afford.

If you cannot afford a Lexus, you should not buy one. If you cannot make payments on your Didge Dart, you should not buy a Lexus.

If you cannot financially take care of the 3 kids you already have, you should not have more.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Well, mostly. But you're shifting the goalposts here.

Upper middle-class families are making sure their kids get to school on time every day because they have the economic resources to do so. Poor families do not have these resources -- by definition. That doesn't mean that upper-middle-class parents are good parents and poor parents are bad parents. It means that upper-middle-class parents have more economic resources than poor parents.

So one possible policy approach would be to make sure that poor parents have the economic resources necessary for making sure their kids get to school in time every day.

Another possible policy approach would be to separate the children of poor parents from their families. The US has actually done this in the past -- for example, with the Indian boarding schools. How did that work out?

We have been doing this and it appears that it is not a cure all. Does it make sense to continue to do something that has been proven not to work?

We have been supporting Head Start programs for years. In MoCo, low income kids get free preK and also get bussed to school for free if needed. My neighbor teaches at one of these locations and often times, the parents just don't bother sending the kids.

What happens when we have made it economically feasible for the kids to attend school and get there on time, but the parents still don't send their kids. How do you propose that we hold these parents accountable?

Evidently we have not been doing that. For example, how much do you know about housing in Baltimore?

Also, how do you propose to "hold parents accountable"? Either parents get their kids to school on time, or else what?

Can we agree that most parents -- including parents who are poor unmarried black women in West Baltimore -- love their children and want good lives for them? I hope so. Let's start from there.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

No, you're just being obtuse.

We're saying that every family decides what they can and cannot afford.

If you cannot afford a Lexus, you should not buy one. If you cannot make payments on your Didge Dart, you should not buy a Lexus.

If you cannot financially take care of the 3 kids you already have, you should not have more.

In short, poor people should not have children. Children are a luxury item that only affluent people should get to have. That's your belief.

Nonetheless, the reality is that poor people do have children, even though there are plenty of people who believe that they shouldn't. How do you propose to deal with that reality?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

No, you're just being obtuse.

We're saying that every family decides what they can and cannot afford.

If you cannot afford a Lexus, you should not buy one. If you cannot make payments on your Didge Dart, you should not buy a Lexus.

If you cannot financially take care of the 3 kids you already have, you should not have more.

In short, poor people should not have children. Children are a luxury item that only affluent people should get to have. That's your belief.

Nonetheless, the reality is that poor people do have children, even though there are plenty of people who believe that they shouldn't. How do you propose to deal with that reality?

There have been several people in this thread suggest that better birth control would be a good start and I agree.

Currently, our system rewards poor unmarried moms (of all races) for having more kids. Why can't we change that up? Let's reward poor unmarried moms for NOT having more kids.

Do you think that poor unmarried moms are helping themselves by having more kids?