I think schools should be segregated.....

[Anonymous 1]

Honestly it may look like I don't care from the outside to other parents. My daughter is a hot mess. She has special needs, looks like she hasn't combed her hair in days (even though I personally comb it every morning) is a mismatched disaster although she is clean in the morning when I send her to school by the end of the day she has spilled 23 things on her and probably jumped in the one mud puddle that she found. She struggles in school, and got held back last year.

But what YOU and other parents don't see, is I do it all on my own. I work full time, I have taken her for every kind of evaluation. I have fought and argued with the school and district over her IEP for years. I make sure she is taken care of and all her work is done to her best ability....Is it where other children her age are, no it's not. She screams and cry's about her school work, but she tries. There are days I want to pull my hair out and cry. I have 2 other children also. Even the special ed teacher told me last year that she has never seen anyone advocate for their child as much as I do.

But from the outside, it looks like my child is not well cared for and doesn't care about school. So who are you to judge?

I’m not suggesting that other parents get to judge you. Teachers and school administrators get to judge your and your child’s effort and involvement, and it sounds like you’re absolutely on top of that. I would prefer to see your child in a school with adequate funding to support her needs.

[Anonymous 1]

No. I’m advocating allocating scarce resources to those that will make the best use of them. If both parents and kids don’t give a f**k then why should anyone else (in the absence of social services involvement, which presents a different set of issues)?

No one at my children’s schools “annoy” me. Full disclosure, they go to fancy private schools that are better funded and equipped than many colleges and universities. And I transition them in middle school to a different private school that starts in middle school. By middle school they know of most issues student’s have and are very able to weed out anyone they are concerned about since the admissions rate is generally around 20%.

Yes, that sounds horrible and elitist, but I very much value my children’s education and make it a priority. I think many low and middle income families feel the same way but have fewer options. We need to allocate school funding in a better way than based on community wealth. That’s simply unfair. But given there is limited funding for schools, we need to make tough decisions about how to allocate it. What’s your suggestion?

We spend a meaningful portion of our household income on the kids. I basically told ODS in December of last year that I wasn’t satisfied with his EFFORT in school, and that if he didn’t want to take advantage of the educational opportunities we were providing him that he would go to public school in September.

If I’m willing to tell my own child that if he’s not making the best uses of the resources I’m providing him that I’m going to reallocate them, why should I have difficulty taking that position when it comes to a stranger’s child?

You don't hear the error in your logic? You are advocating placing troubled children out in the wilderness because they annoy you. A lot of these disruptive kids come from homes run by tyrants.

[ quote="Anonymous 1" post_id=773631 time=1597260799]

Imagine these kids as adults. After we throw away disadvantaged kids, whom else can we throw away?

Actually, I’m suggesting throwing away middle income and wealthy kids too. My proposal was to split schools by effort, and well fund the schools that have the kids who want to learn and parents who are at least willing to engage with teachers and staff when there is an issue. I want to put all of the disruptive kids (that choose that behavior, not children that are disruptive because of an issue the school and parents are actively working to address) that don’t do their work, skip class, and otherwise generally take time and resources away from students who value an education into poorly funded schools.

[/quote]

[Anonymous 7]

California is blocking charters because the teachers union doesn't want to only be stuck with the kids whose parents don't care.
The true problem lies with the teachers union.

Blocking as in what? They can't exist?

[hotspice58]

This is so true.

I think the bigger issue is finding out what schools are suited to helping those students that seem to, as you put it, not care about school, and do the minimum. Now I know some students are like that. They couldn't care less about school. They want to do other things with their time. However, there are students that have fallen through the cracks, and can't get the help they need, so they give up.

They are not all in the same category. I don't think schools should be segregated. That wouldn't help. They need to be better funded, no matter where they are. The kids are the ones that suffer when adults make these decisions that they think are best.

[Olioxenfree]

A child's quality of education should not be limited by how much of a try hard their parents are. The kids who don't have a parent on them to stay motivated in school are the kids who need highly skilled and involved teachers the most. Otherwise that is just asking for a repetition of generational poverty because lets face it, having the money to have a parent home all of the time, hire tutors, having had access to a well funded education yourself, etc. all contribute to how involved a parent is able to be in their child's education. A rich parent does not need to be determined in order to have their kids at school everyday on time and have their homework done. They can just hire someone to do that for them. A poor parent needs beyond determination to juggle everything they are already juggling while still providing those things for their kids. They have no one else. The school system is already segregated, it doesn't need further segregation.

[hotspice58]

So, only inner city parents don’t care?? Wow. Wealthy parents may not care. They have money to cover up. Same goes with child abuse. Wealthy people can cover their crap up.

Not by race but by parent and student involvement. If you’re low income and determined for your child to get a great education you should have access to a school that is funded to the level of a school in an affluent suburb. However, if you and your child decide to skip school, blow off homework, and you don’t value an education, then let’s just toss your kid in a school that provides a very basic education and is minimally funded.

You can’t throw enough money into a school to make parents and children care.

So in your model of schools the children who are not blessed with parents that have the time, resources or will to advocate for them get less educational support than the more fortunate. Is that correct?

No. In my model if BOTH students and parents don’t give a f**k then they don’t need to screw things up for those trying to actually get an education.

[Anonymous 1]

I very clearly said that if either child or parent were trying that should be enough.

And honestly, when ODS was young I worked 80+ hours a week. And when we went on vacation I generally needed to jump on a call occasionally.

Parents either try or they don’t.

A child's quality of education should not be limited by how much of a try hard their parents are. The kids who don't have a parent on them to stay motivated in school are the kids who need highly skilled and involved teachers the most. Otherwise that is just asking for a repetition of generational poverty because lets face it, having the money to have a parent home all of the time, hire tutors, having had access to a well funded education yourself, etc. all contribute to how involved a parent is able to be in their child's education. A rich parent does not need to be determined in order to have their kids at school everyday on time and have their homework done. They can just hire someone to do that for them. A poor parent needs beyond determination to juggle everything they are already juggling while still providing those things for their kids. They have no one else. The school system is already segregated, it doesn't need further segregation.

[Anonymous 1]

I very clearly stated in an earlier response that I would do the same with middle class and wealthy students enrolled in public schools.

So, only inner city parents don’t care?? Wow. Wealthy parents may not care. They have money to cover up. Same goes with child abuse. Wealthy people can cover their crap up.

So in your model of schools the children who are not blessed with parents that have the time, resources or will to advocate for them get less educational support than the more fortunate. Is that correct?

No. In my model if BOTH students and parents don’t give a f**k then they don’t need to screw things up for those trying to actually get an education.

[Olioxenfree]

How hard a child "tries" most often correlates with how hard a parent pushes them. Maybe you had a 100% self motivated miracle kid who from the age of five knew the value of education and didn't need a parent there to motivate them, but that isn't the case for most. While you were out working 11-16 hour shifts, someone was there pushing your kid, getting them to school on time, getting them to get their homework done, etc.

I very clearly said that if either child or parent were trying that should be enough.

And honestly, when ODS was young I worked 80+ hours a week. And when we went on vacation I generally needed to jump on a call occasionally.

Parents either try or they don’t.

A child's quality of education should not be limited by how much of a try hard their parents are. The kids who don't have a parent on them to stay motivated in school are the kids who need highly skilled and involved teachers the most. Otherwise that is just asking for a repetition of generational poverty because lets face it, having the money to have a parent home all of the time, hire tutors, having had access to a well funded education yourself, etc. all contribute to how involved a parent is able to be in their child's education. A rich parent does not need to be determined in order to have their kids at school everyday on time and have their homework done. They can just hire someone to do that for them. A poor parent needs beyond determination to juggle everything they are already juggling while still providing those things for their kids. They have no one else. The school system is already segregated, it doesn't need further segregation.

[Anonymous 1]

I wasn’t working a shift - I was earning my six figure salary.

When our local food bank had nothing but cash donations, I went to 17 different grocery stores trying to find something for our clients to eat after those, like you, that were able to do so bought EVERYTHING. I did this without a mask (not required in March), no gloves, and no hand sanitizer. Why weren’t you out with me helping your fellow man?

I realize that I’m very fortunate in that I can split my household income into 1/3 for kids, 1/3 for charity, and 1/3 for daily living. What do you do?

If you want to boast about how financially comfortable your family is while also bragging about how your kid wants to “eat the rich” than maybe you’re not devoting enough to charity.

I spent 7 years as a volunteer guardian ad litem, 10 years volunteering at the food bank (and see my reply to poplar grove if you want to know what that volunteer work means).

I also prepare 3 meals a week for the local homeless shelter. What the f**k do you do to actually help other people?

ETA: it doesn’t matter how much I want to help a particular child. If they don’t want to be helped there is nothing I can do. As a GAL, I got a kid into his dream school - John Hopkins, pulling every connection I had to do it on a full scholarship. He chose to take a job at target rather than pursue his education.

How hard a child "tries" most often correlates with how hard a parent pushes them. Maybe you had a 100% self motivated miracle kid who from the age of five knew the value of education and didn't need a parent there to motivate them, but that isn't the case for most. While you were out working 11-16 hour shifts, someone was there pushing your kid, getting them to school on time, getting them to get their homework done, etc.

I very clearly said that if either child or parent were trying that should be enough.

And honestly, when ODS was young I worked 80+ hours a week. And when we went on vacation I generally needed to jump on a call occasionally.

Parents either try or they don’t.

A child's quality of education should not be limited by how much of a try hard their parents are. The kids who don't have a parent on them to stay motivated in school are the kids who need highly skilled and involved teachers the most. Otherwise that is just asking for a repetition of generational poverty because lets face it, having the money to have a parent home all of the time, hire tutors, having had access to a well funded education yourself, etc. all contribute to how involved a parent is able to be in their child's education. A rich parent does not need to be determined in order to have their kids at school everyday on time and have their homework done. They can just hire someone to do that for them. A poor parent needs beyond determination to juggle everything they are already juggling while still providing those things for their kids. They have no one else. The school system is already segregated, it doesn't need further segregation.