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

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

People don't ask for foot problems or cancer.

[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.

We already "punish" the children by enabling the parents first of all, and then when they're enrolled in school, the funding used to support them with learning issues and/or language barriers produces few results.

We still have a gap DESPITE the money from taxes.

This is what bleeding hearts fail to see. Many of these kids aren't graduating with skills that will take them through life.

It's not money, and I say this as an educator with over 20 years in the "biz." It's a combination of large class sizes, little to NO discipline, and losing quality teachers. You can pay decent salaries to excellent new teachers, but we're losing them - and losing them quickly. No one can work effectively under these circumstances.

We've counseled out so many excellent teachers. My own children know not to enter the profession b/c it's become a joke.

And we're wondering why kids can't learn even with an increase in funding? We CAN'T teach these children effectively. There are far too many disadvantaged students crammed in the same schools.

[Anonymous]

I think we are looking at this wrong. I think that families that receive assistance should be required to attend an education program in their community if they are.unemployeed. This.program could run classes for GED prep, English language classes, therapy, financial literacy, and employment support. The kids could participate in tutoring and therputic activities and this.would get kids off the street after school. Tie this to benefits.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I think we are looking at this wrong. I think that families that receive assistance should be required to attend an education program in their community if they are.unemployeed. This.program could run classes for GED prep, English language classes, therapy, financial literacy, and employment support. The kids could participate in tutoring and therputic activities and this.would get kids off the street after school. Tie this to benefits.

They already do (for the most part). If you receive temporary cash assistance, there are work requirements (that can be met through job training, classes, etc.). They typically aren't great, and they obviously haven't produced the desired results (work requirements/training have been around for decades).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I think we are looking at this wrong. I think that families that receive assistance should be required to attend an education program in their community if they are.unemployeed. This.program could run classes for GED prep, English language classes, therapy, financial literacy, and employment support. The kids could participate in tutoring and therputic activities and this.would get kids off the street after school. Tie this to benefits.

This is already done. These programs exist. Millions of dollars have been poured into them with very little to no results.

[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.

Really? What do you think we should be doing that we are not? What resources exactly do you think would make a difference here?

1) provide safe housing. Do you know Freddy gray was poisoned by lead as a child from unsafe public housing. http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/maryland/investigations/bs-md-lead-poisoning-gaps-20151213-story.html

2) year round public school that starts at 8am and ends at 8pm, providing 3 meals a day, school, tutoring, clubs and sports.

So, have other people parent the kids?

[Anonymous]

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.

Really? What do you think we should be doing that we are not? What resources exactly do you think would make a difference here?

1) provide safe housing. Do you know Freddy gray was poisoned by lead as a child from unsafe public housing. http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/maryland/investigations/bs-md-lead-poisoning-gaps-20151213-story.html

2) year round public school that starts at 8am and ends at 8pm, providing 3 meals a day, school, tutoring, clubs and sports.

So, have other people parent the kids?

It's already being done with much success. No it is not parenting. It is giving kids what other kids have. I don't drop my kids at baseball practice and tell the coach to parent him. I don't take my kids to a tutor and say... hey can you parent my child.

While you would love to imagine a bunch of deadbeats not parenting their kids some of these people... wait, ready.... work at night and kids are home alone. Many are being raised by grandparents who are involved but don't have resources. They don't have anybody helping them with homework or the resources to enroll them in classes, sports. Each child should be required to do 1 non sports class (chess, music, art) and 1 sport after school and study hall with tutors.

The kids need food, school, tutoring and extracurricular activities like every rich kid that is "successful".

[Anonymous]

It's so obvious that many posters here have no idea what life is like for these people. It is not like TV. Many women have babies bc they get more money. They push to have their children diagnosed with things like ADD bc they get more money every month- a significant amount that actually would make a difference to my family. And, yes, doctors diagnose things. Many of the kids are wild bc they do t know any better. Their parents sleep all day and the kids fend for themselves with no discipline. When I would work with these children in their homes the parents did not care. The fathers were not present or sleeping on the couch. The mothers were screaming at their other children or off somewhere else in the house. They did not want me there to try to help their children.

[Anonymous]

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NzspsovNvII[youtube][/youtube]

[Anonymous]

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:It's so obvious that many posters here have no idea what life is like for these people. It is not like TV. Many women have babies bc they get more money. They push to have their children diagnosed with things like ADD bc they get more money every month- a significant amount that actually would make a difference to my family. And, yes, doctors diagnose things. Many of the kids are wild bc they do t know any better. Their parents sleep all day and the kids fend for themselves with no discipline. When I would work with these children in their homes the parents did not care. The fathers were not present or sleeping on the couch. The mothers were screaming at their other children or off somewhere else in the house. They did not want me there to try to help their children.

I've also worked with kids from this environment and this poster is sPOT ON. Not all families work this way, but too many.

It's terrible for kids and it's terrible for us because it truly feels like no matter what you do, this poor kid will never have a chance because the parents just can't do what they should be doing.

Yes, the moms have more babies because it means more funds. And yes they push for diagnoses.

Unfortunately no good solutions, but I do wish we would work harder to disincentivize lower income families from having more and more kids. Right now the system makes it seem like it's lucrative to have more and more kids.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

People don't ask for foot problems or cancer.

Nope. Actually it would be more like a podiatrist posting about a patient who gets super cheap pedicures at a shady nail salon. Patient always gets a foot fungus, yet keeps going back there month after month.

This is something in that patient's control. She can choose to quit going there or she can continue to go there (kinda stupid) and continue to get foot infections.

Getting pregnant is similarly a choice to some extent. And it it a choice that some ooor women continue to make over and over despite the fact that they cannot support the kids they already have.

They see it as simple as that they will get additional money (via WIC, via SNAP, whatever) with an additional kid. Not completely thinking it through and thinking about the added emotional and financial expense.

I have no doubt that if we made it more of an immediate financial benefit to not have kids, that would help immensely.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Nope. Actually it would be more like a podiatrist posting about a patient who gets super cheap pedicures at a shady nail salon. Patient always gets a foot fungus, yet keeps going back there month after month.

This is something in that patient's control. She can choose to quit going there or she can continue to go there (kinda stupid) and continue to get foot infections.

Getting pregnant is similarly a choice to some extent. And it it a choice that some ooor women continue to make over and over despite the fact that they cannot support the kids they already have.

They see it as simple as that they will get additional money (via WIC, via SNAP, whatever) with an additional kid. Not completely thinking it through and thinking about the added emotional and financial expense.

I have no doubt that if we made it more of an immediate financial benefit to not have kids, that would help immensely.

How?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Nope. Actually it would be more like a podiatrist posting about a patient who gets super cheap pedicures at a shady nail salon. Patient always gets a foot fungus, yet keeps going back there month after month.

This is something in that patient's control. She can choose to quit going there or she can continue to go there (kinda stupid) and continue to get foot infections.

Getting pregnant is similarly a choice to some extent. And it it a choice that some ooor women continue to make over and over despite the fact that they cannot support the kids they already have.

They see it as simple as that they will get additional money (via WIC, via SNAP, whatever) with an additional kid. Not completely thinking it through and thinking about the added emotional and financial expense.

I have no doubt that if we made it more of an immediate financial benefit to not have kids, that would help immensely.

How?

Have you not been reading the posts?

Currently, the system is set up so that unmarried, lower income moms see that they will get more money/benefits each month if they have another kid.

If we offered a financial reward for NOT having another kid, it makes sense that they would choose that route. Which would be beneficial for all involved - the overextended mom, and the kids she already has.

It can be totally voluntary, so the PP won't be offended that poor people can't have an unlimited amount of kids.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Nope. Actually it would be more like a podiatrist posting about a patient who gets super cheap pedicures at a shady nail salon. Patient always gets a foot fungus, yet keeps going back there month after month.

This is something in that patient's control. She can choose to quit going there or she can continue to go there (kinda stupid) and continue to get foot infections.

Getting pregnant is similarly a choice to some extent. And it it a choice that some ooor women continue to make over and over despite the fact that they cannot support the kids they already have.

They see it as simple as that they will get additional money (via WIC, via SNAP, whatever) with an additional kid. Not completely thinking it through and thinking about the added emotional and financial expense.

I have no doubt that if we made it more of an immediate financial benefit to not have kids, that would help immensely.

How?

Have you not been reading the posts?

Currently, the system is set up so that unmarried, lower income moms see that they will get more money/benefits each month if they have another kid.

If we offered a financial reward for NOT having another kid, it makes sense that they would choose that route. Which would be beneficial for all involved - the overextended mom, and the kids she already has.

It can be totally voluntary, so the PP won't be offended that poor people can't have an unlimited amount of kids.

So now we pay for the abortions and even extra money as a perk for having abortions? Just no

If you are on government assistance you and your teen girls have IUD's. Otherwise no assistance.