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

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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?

Well, I wouldn't exactly consider WIC, SNAP, Medicaid, and housing assistance (which most people actually don't get) to be a reward for having a child. Would you? I would consider them to be programs that are supposed to ensure that the child is fed and housed and has health care.

If you want a program that pays poor women for not having children IN ADDITION TO programs that ensure that children born to poor women are fed and housed and have health care, then ok, I guess. Though the program would also have to pay poor men for not having children, right? And there would also have to be a program for poor people to have affordable access to effective contraception and abortion -- which might, maybe, happen in Maryland, but would never happen in the states where most of the poor people live.

[Anonymous]

What "dis-incentives" should society place on people to deter them from having children they cannot possibly care for?

In immigration law, there are provisions to prevent people from emigrating to the U.S. if they are "likely to become a public charge" (ie - dependent on welfare to survive).

Why are there so few provisions applicable to US citizens?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:What "dis-incentives" should society place on people to deter them from having children they cannot possibly care for?

In immigration law, there are provisions to prevent people from emigrating to the U.S. if they are "likely to become a public charge" (ie - dependent on welfare to survive).

Why are there so few provisions applicable to US citizens?

What do you suggest? Before the state issues a birth certificate, each parent must present their most recent tax return for public inspection, and if their income is below a certain limit, they get 40 lashes? Plus an extra 20 if the mother refuses to provide the name of the biological father?

The willingness of affluent people to place restrictions on the liberty of poor people is astonishing.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What "dis-incentives" should society place on people to deter them from having children they cannot possibly care for?

In immigration law, there are provisions to prevent people from emigrating to the U.S. if they are "likely to become a public charge" (ie - dependent on welfare to survive).

Why are there so few provisions applicable to US citizens?

What do you suggest? Before the state issues a birth certificate, each parent must present their most recent tax return for public inspection, and if their income is below a certain limit, they get 40 lashes? Plus an extra 20 if the mother refuses to provide the name of the biological father?

The willingness of affluent people to place restrictions on the liberty of poor people is astonishing.

Oh FFS.

The willingness of liberals to take money from the hard-working, middle class and redistribute it to people who continue to make shitty decisions is pretty astonishing.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What "dis-incentives" should society place on people to deter them from having children they cannot possibly care for?

In immigration law, there are provisions to prevent people from emigrating to the U.S. if they are "likely to become a public charge" (ie - dependent on welfare to survive).

Why are there so few provisions applicable to US citizens?

What do you suggest? Before the state issues a birth certificate, each parent must present their most recent tax return for public inspection, and if their income is below a certain limit, they get 40 lashes? Plus an extra 20 if the mother refuses to provide the name of the biological father?

The willingness of affluent people to place restrictions on the liberty of poor people is astonishing.

Oh FFS.

The willingness of liberals to take money from the hard-working, middle class and redistribute it to people who continue to make shitty decisions is pretty astonishing.

"Liberals" and "hard-working middle class" are actually overlapping categories. They're not mutually exclusive.

If you can think of a way that would effectively disincentivize poor people (women and men) from having children while also

1. not punishing the children
2. not unconstitutionally restricting liberty
3. being acceptable to the many people who believe that the government should restrict access to contraception and abortion

you should immediately get in touch with your state and federal elected officials.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What "dis-incentives" should society place on people to deter them from having children they cannot possibly care for?

In immigration law, there are provisions to prevent people from emigrating to the U.S. if they are "likely to become a public charge" (ie - dependent on welfare to survive).

Why are there so few provisions applicable to US citizens?

What do you suggest? Before the state issues a birth certificate, each parent must present their most recent tax return for public inspection, and if their income is below a certain limit, they get 40 lashes? Plus an extra 20 if the mother refuses to provide the name of the biological father?

The willingness of affluent people to place restrictions on the liberty of poor people is astonishing.

Are you kidding me??

Who doesn't have restrictions on their personal liberties? It's not just poor people.

Middle class people often have to sacrifice having more kids because of financial reasons. Why shouldn't that be the same for poor families?

And when you are relying on taxpayer money to fund your multiple kids, then by default, it's fair to expect that you lose some of your personal liberties until you can get yourself out of poverty.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What "dis-incentives" should society place on people to deter them from having children they cannot possibly care for?

In immigration law, there are provisions to prevent people from emigrating to the U.S. if they are "likely to become a public charge" (ie - dependent on welfare to survive).

Why are there so few provisions applicable to US citizens?

What do you suggest? Before the state issues a birth certificate, each parent must present their most recent tax return for public inspection, and if their income is below a certain limit, they get 40 lashes? Plus an extra 20 if the mother refuses to provide the name of the biological father?

The willingness of affluent people to place restrictions on the liberty of poor people is astonishing.

Oh FFS.

The willingness of liberals to take money from the hard-working, middle class and redistribute it to people who continue to make shitty decisions is pretty astonishing.

"Liberals" and "hard-working middle class" are actually overlapping categories. They're not mutually exclusive.

If you can think of a way that would effectively disincentivize poor people (women and men) from having children while also

1. not punishing the children
2. not unconstitutionally restricting liberty
3. being acceptable to the many people who believe that the government should restrict access to contraception and abortion

you should immediately get in touch with your state and federal elected officials.

Mandatory birth control if you are accepting public assistance.

You can still choose NOT to be on birth control, but then you cannot get public assistance.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Mandatory birth control if you are accepting public assistance.

You can still choose NOT to be on birth control, but then you cannot get public assistance.

Which is not an unconstitutional restriction on people's privacy and liberty, infringement on freedom from unwarranted search and seizure, and discrimination on the basis of sex, why?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What "dis-incentives" should society place on people to deter them from having children they cannot possibly care for?

In immigration law, there are provisions to prevent people from emigrating to the U.S. if they are "likely to become a public charge" (ie - dependent on welfare to survive).

Why are there so few provisions applicable to US citizens?

What do you suggest? Before the state issues a birth certificate, each parent must present their most recent tax return for public inspection, and if their income is below a certain limit, they get 40 lashes? Plus an extra 20 if the mother refuses to provide the name of the biological father?

The willingness of affluent people to place restrictions on the liberty of poor people is astonishing.

Are you kidding me??

Who doesn't have restrictions on their personal liberties? It's not just poor people.

Middle class people often have to sacrifice having more kids because of financial reasons. Why shouldn't that be the same for poor families?

And when you are relying on taxpayer money to fund your multiple kids, then by default, it's fair to expect that you lose some of your personal liberties until you can get yourself out of poverty.

It might be fair (or it might not), but it's not constitutional. Non-poor people are not supposed to have more legal rights than poor people (although obviously, in reality, they do).

By the way, I rely on taxpayer money to fund my multiple kids. I have 2 kids in public school. Our total tax liability doesn't come anywhere near the cost to the public school of educating them.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Mandatory birth control if you are accepting public assistance.

You can still choose NOT to be on birth control, but then you cannot get public assistance.

So, no SNAP for a household where one of the parents was not "on birth control"? (How would a man be "on birth control" anyway?) Or maybe no Medicaid coverage for a pregnant woman who got pregnant while not "on birth control"? Or maybe, if you have a housing assistance voucher, you lose your voucher and become homeless? How would that not be harmful for the child?

[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.

So what if poor people want to have kids! If you can't take care of yourself, who is going to take care of your kids? Ohhhh, that is right. The taxpayers.

I want a boat. Can the taxpayers get me one? It is less than the cost of paying for a kid for 18yrs and then another 50 years adult welfare.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What "dis-incentives" should society place on people to deter them from having children they cannot possibly care for?

In immigration law, there are provisions to prevent people from emigrating to the U.S. if they are "likely to become a public charge" (ie - dependent on welfare to survive).

Why are there so few provisions applicable to US citizens?

What do you suggest? Before the state issues a birth certificate, each parent must present their most recent tax return for public inspection, and if their income is below a certain limit, they get 40 lashes? Plus an extra 20 if the mother refuses to provide the name of the biological father?

The willingness of affluent people to place restrictions on the liberty of poor people is astonishing.

Are you kidding me??

Who doesn't have restrictions on their personal liberties? It's not just poor people.

Middle class people often have to sacrifice having more kids because of financial reasons. Why shouldn't that be the same for poor families?

And when you are relying on taxpayer money to fund your multiple kids, then by default, it's fair to expect that you lose some of your personal liberties until you can get yourself out of poverty.

Exactly. We had 2 kids because we thought having 3 or 4 would be tough to do financially. Poor people just spread their legs as a form of free entertainment and more $$ on their SNAP card when they pop another one out.

Put IUD's in girls 12 and older. Stop the cycle.

[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.

In your mind, what are the things that we fail to provide?

I don't think that's the right question. The right questions are:

1. How does growing up in systemic poverty harm children?
2. What policies could ameliorate the effects of child poverty?

There's plenty of stuff about this easily available on the Internet, if you're interested.

I don't need to read the Internet. I grew up in childhood poverty (caused by parents getting pregnant out-of-wedlock at 17&18); I also have a Master's in Social Work and a Master's in Public Health.

I'd like to know what you would propose.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

So what if poor people want to have kids! If you can't take care of yourself, who is going to take care of your kids? Ohhhh, that is right. The taxpayers.

I want a boat. Can the taxpayers get me one? It is less than the cost of paying for a kid for 18yrs and then another 50 years adult welfare.

If the parents don't take care of the kids, which is better for the kids and for the taxpayers? For the taxpayers to take care of the kids, or for nobody to take care of the kids?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

So what if poor people want to have kids! If you can't take care of yourself, who is going to take care of your kids? Ohhhh, that is right. The taxpayers.

I want a boat. Can the taxpayers get me one? It is less than the cost of paying for a kid for 18yrs and then another 50 years adult welfare.

If the parents don't take care of the kids, which is better for the kids and for the taxpayers? For the taxpayers to take care of the kids, or for nobody to take care of the kids?

They lose custody of their kids. Give the kids a better life. No meal ticket. Break the cycle. Stop the 30yr old Grandmom syndrome.