Spin off of "Teenagers" - Better Ways to Provide for Everyone

[Anonymous 5]

As for future success rates…

Classes in the worst neighborhoods are easier to pass than classes at a college prep school. Maybe that’s good, maybe that’s bad… but it does mean that a 4.0 gpa is easier to achieve and therefore looks better on a college app.

Schools in the worst neighborhoods that have high achieving students in them are more likely to receive acceptance and scholarships from federally funded universities than students from college prep schools.

Students below the poverty line will get a free associates degree, with access to other federal grants the college prep kids won’t get making furthering education much cheaper and making student loans less impactful upon graduation.

Some parental choices are not usually that great in bad areas, many lose custody because of bad choices. Most federally funded schools also waive all fees to foster children.

Why do you believe that classes in the worst neighborhoods are easier to pass?

Curriculum is usually decided at the state level with no consideration for socio economic differences. The pass/failure acceptance rate/goal is also decided by the state with no consideration for differences.

In my state, for example, the math curriculum from K-12 is decided at the state level and the district decides how each lesson is taught- they literally write the lesson plans the same for each and every school. Teachers are supposed to differentiate per class/ level but all of that comes from the district and it is the same for each and every school.

Furthermore, teachers at impoverished schools report much higher stress levels, have a much higher percentage of students with learning and behavioral disabilities, and are given fewer resources. It's actually much harder to be a "good" teacher at a "bad" school. If the "bad" schools don't have the amazing teachers that "good" schools have, it would be much harder to pass as a student.

Where did you read about this?

I didn’t read about it, I’ve attended both. ( 6 high schools overall)

In a good school I needed to study extremely hard to pass geometry with a C
In a “bad” school I literally was handed geometric shapes and told to color them in as a geometry credit.

So, these sweeping statements are based on your experiences as a high schooler many moons ago? Hmm, ok.

It sounds as if you are using these generalizations to defend unequal school funding, or the widening wealth gap. I don't know that I would defend that because I thought, "bad schools are dumbed down, therefore easier to pass, and you can still have equal educational opportunities no matter what."

[Anonymous 5]

As for future success rates…

Classes in the worst neighborhoods are easier to pass than classes at a college prep school. Maybe that’s good, maybe that’s bad… but it does mean that a 4.0 gpa is easier to achieve and therefore looks better on a college app.

Schools in the worst neighborhoods that have high achieving students in them are more likely to receive acceptance and scholarships from federally funded universities than students from college prep schools.

Students below the poverty line will get a free associates degree, with access to other federal grants the college prep kids won’t get making furthering education much cheaper and making student loans less impactful upon graduation.

Some parental choices are not usually that great in bad areas, many lose custody because of bad choices. Most federally funded schools also waive all fees to foster children.

Why do you believe that classes in the worst neighborhoods are easier to pass?

Curriculum is usually decided at the state level with no consideration for socio economic differences. The pass/failure acceptance rate/goal is also decided by the state with no consideration for differences.

In my state, for example, the math curriculum from K-12 is decided at the state level and the district decides how each lesson is taught- they literally write the lesson plans the same for each and every school. Teachers are supposed to differentiate per class/ level but all of that comes from the district and it is the same for each and every school.

Furthermore, teachers at impoverished schools report much higher stress levels, have a much higher percentage of students with learning and behavioral disabilities, and are given fewer resources. It's actually much harder to be a "good" teacher at a "bad" school. If the "bad" schools don't have the amazing teachers that "good" schools have, it would be much harder to pass as a student.

Where did you read about this?

I think it depends on the state too. My kids are in school in Arizona. I have teacher friends who work in Arizona and Nevada (and yes let's note that we are talking about two states that are very often in the bottom rankings for education). What I know from my friends is that teachers are largely left to their own devices to come up with the curriculum. There may be some loose, high-level guidance but that's about it. Also, teachers in my low-income area are encouraged to basically bend over backwards to get students to pass with things such as accepting late work (with no points deducted for lateness) and constantly offering alternatives to earn points to pass. I've also personally seen and heard stories where students really should have been failed and repeated a grade but the schools move them on to the next one anyway.

It all happens around here and I bet that students in high income areas in Phoenix or Flagstaff are working harder to pass the same classes than the students in this area.

That's possible.

In Arizona, standards are also adopted at the state level with no differentiation between class levels (except GT) or socioeconomic differences. Curriculum is adopted at the local level but all curriculum must meet the standards, meaning what is taught and at what level. I would seriously doubt, though, that a school district would hold their higher performing schools to a different level than their lower performing schools. If they did, how would they justify that? We're okay with under-funding the "bad" schools with "dumb" kids because this is the best we can do?

[Deleted User 1990]

Why do you believe that classes in the worst neighborhoods are easier to pass?

Curriculum is usually decided at the state level with no consideration for socio economic differences. The pass/failure acceptance rate/goal is also decided by the state with no consideration for differences.

In my state, for example, the math curriculum from K-12 is decided at the state level and the district decides how each lesson is taught- they literally write the lesson plans the same for each and every school. Teachers are supposed to differentiate per class/ level but all of that comes from the district and it is the same for each and every school.

Furthermore, teachers at impoverished schools report much higher stress levels, have a much higher percentage of students with learning and behavioral disabilities, and are given fewer resources. It's actually much harder to be a "good" teacher at a "bad" school. If the "bad" schools don't have the amazing teachers that "good" schools have, it would be much harder to pass as a student.

Where did you read about this?

I didn’t read about it, I’ve attended both. ( 6 high schools overall)

In a good school I needed to study extremely hard to pass geometry with a C
In a “bad” school I literally was handed geometric shapes and told to color them in as a geometry credit.

So, these sweeping statements are based on your experiences as a high schooler many moons ago? Hmm, ok.

It sounds as if you are using these generalizations to defend unequal school funding, or the widening wealth gap. I don't know that I would defend that because I thought, "bad schools are dumbed down, therefore easier to pass, and you can still have equal educational opportunities no matter what."

I kinda don’t care how you think it sounds… I’m sorry.

The schools in bad neighborhoods are easier to get A’s in.


How much a kid tries in school, will matter.
The ones who value education will succeed, they will get scholarships and funding and they will get the keys to a successful life.

The ones who don’t care, won’t.

[Deleted User 1990]

Why do you believe that classes in the worst neighborhoods are easier to pass?

Curriculum is usually decided at the state level with no consideration for socio economic differences. The pass/failure acceptance rate/goal is also decided by the state with no consideration for differences.

In my state, for example, the math curriculum from K-12 is decided at the state level and the district decides how each lesson is taught- they literally write the lesson plans the same for each and every school. Teachers are supposed to differentiate per class/ level but all of that comes from the district and it is the same for each and every school.

Furthermore, teachers at impoverished schools report much higher stress levels, have a much higher percentage of students with learning and behavioral disabilities, and are given fewer resources. It's actually much harder to be a "good" teacher at a "bad" school. If the "bad" schools don't have the amazing teachers that "good" schools have, it would be much harder to pass as a student.

Where did you read about this?

I think it depends on the state too. My kids are in school in Arizona. I have teacher friends who work in Arizona and Nevada (and yes let's note that we are talking about two states that are very often in the bottom rankings for education). What I know from my friends is that teachers are largely left to their own devices to come up with the curriculum. There may be some loose, high-level guidance but that's about it. Also, teachers in my low-income area are encouraged to basically bend over backwards to get students to pass with things such as accepting late work (with no points deducted for lateness) and constantly offering alternatives to earn points to pass. I've also personally seen and heard stories where students really should have been failed and repeated a grade but the schools move them on to the next one anyway.

It all happens around here and I bet that students in high income areas in Phoenix or Flagstaff are working harder to pass the same classes than the students in this area.

That's possible.

In Arizona, standards are also adopted at the state level with no differentiation between class levels (except GT) or socioeconomic differences. Curriculum is adopted at the local level but all curriculum must meet the standards, meaning what is taught and at what level. I would seriously doubt, though, that a school district would hold their higher performing schools to a different level than their lower performing schools. If they did, how would they justify that? We're okay with under-funding the "bad" schools with "dumb" kids because this is the best we can do?

High schools have different pathways within them.

In a single school, there are a few different pathways.

There are levels of classes, the easy ones, hard ones and super hard ones. The super hard ones get you college credits.

If not enough students care enough to elect to take the harder ones, they won’t exist at the school after a while…

[WellPreserved]

I didn’t read about it, I’ve attended both. ( 6 high schools overall)

In a good school I needed to study extremely hard to pass geometry with a C
In a “bad” school I literally was handed geometric shapes and told to color them in as a geometry credit.

So, these sweeping statements are based on your experiences as a high schooler many moons ago? Hmm, ok.

It sounds as if you are using these generalizations to defend unequal school funding, or the widening wealth gap. I don't know that I would defend that because I thought, "bad schools are dumbed down, therefore easier to pass, and you can still have equal educational opportunities no matter what."

I kinda don’t care how you think it sounds… I’m sorry.

The schools in bad neighborhoods are easier to get A’s in.


How much a kid tries in school, will matter.
The ones who value education will succeed, they will get scholarships and funding and they will get the keys to a successful life.

The ones who don’t care, won’t.

This is a sad commentary on public school education.

Lowest performing schools means that kids in that district aren't trying enough.
Highest performing schools means that kids are better motivated.

Isn't that terribly simplistic (and horrendously bigoted) to assume that a certain economic demographic of children are trying less than another?

[cgd5112]

Dh and I went to public school in a poor and to some degree ethnically segregated school district. We took AP courses, SAT prep workshops, and ACT prep workshops. The AP courses offered were VERY limited ( thanks to Prop 13 in the 70s ….). Even if our public school education was subpar compared to the high school two towns over that was located in a very nice high income neighborhood, we still had to take the SAME standardized test for AP courses and SATs and ACT. No accommodations were given to us because we were from the bad part of town and from a low scoring school district. I never was handed a shapes coloring book in geometry class either.

We passed ALL the AP tests we took as did 88% of our classmates that took them that same year. We got grants and scholarships for NEED base and not for coming from a poor school district.

Bad and excellent educators are everywhere.

I agree with you in disagreeing with Bob’s point of view.

So, these sweeping statements are based on your experiences as a high schooler many moons ago? Hmm, ok.

It sounds as if you are using these generalizations to defend unequal school funding, or the widening wealth gap. I don't know that I would defend that because I thought, "bad schools are dumbed down, therefore easier to pass, and you can still have equal educational opportunities no matter what."

I kinda don’t care how you think it sounds… I’m sorry.

The schools in bad neighborhoods are easier to get A’s in.


How much a kid tries in school, will matter.
The ones who value education will succeed, they will get scholarships and funding and they will get the keys to a successful life.

The ones who don’t care, won’t.

This is a sad commentary on public school education.

Lowest performing schools means that kids in that district aren't trying enough.
Highest performing schools means that kids are better motivated.

Isn't that terribly simplistic (and horrendously bigoted) to assume that a certain economic demographic of children are trying less than another?

[Deleted User 1990]

So, these sweeping statements are based on your experiences as a high schooler many moons ago? Hmm, ok.

It sounds as if you are using these generalizations to defend unequal school funding, or the widening wealth gap. I don't know that I would defend that because I thought, "bad schools are dumbed down, therefore easier to pass, and you can still have equal educational opportunities no matter what."

I kinda don’t care how you think it sounds… I’m sorry.

The schools in bad neighborhoods are easier to get A’s in.


How much a kid tries in school, will matter.
The ones who value education will succeed, they will get scholarships and funding and they will get the keys to a successful life.

The ones who don’t care, won’t.

This is a sad commentary on public school education.

Lowest performing schools means that kids in that district aren't trying enough.
Highest performing schools means that kids are better motivated.

Isn't that terribly simplistic (and horrendously bigoted) to assume that a certain economic demographic of children are trying less than another?

Again, kids will typically live up to their expectations.

A kid who is expected and pushed to do well will succeed regardless of financial status as a child. Plenty of rich adults grew up poor .

Kids who aren’t really expected to do anything with their lives usually don’t, unless they get some sort of epiphany later on in life, which is rare.


It’s pretty dependent on the parenting also.

[Valentina327]

Re ,”but now we have a fully blown entitlement mindset we're dealing with. “



"My Grandfather walked 10 miles to work every day,
My father walked 5 miles,
I am driving a Cadillac,
My son is in Mercedes,
My grandson will be in Ferrari,
He said my great-grandson will be walking again!"

"So I asked him, well why is that?
And he said to me,
Tough time create strong men,
Strong men create easy times,
Easy times create weak men,
Weak men create tough times!"

This quote came to mind in what you wrote. The generation you reference, Gen Z, I think ( don’t quote me) are products of the previous generation who are the product of the previous one, etc … I think that to say “they” is in a way distancing ourselves from a situation we don’t like that we may very well have full responsibility of creating.

It’s a very thought provoking quote. So much discussion can come from it. I also agree with Love WhatU. It is a discussion so big that tying things out on here would not work. However, some commentary on the matter makes for some great discussions. What do you think of the quote and shared responsibility?

You're crazy in thinking that people will always want to earn more and work harder. I know plenty of people who would rather live on social services than get a job.
Personally I think there should be a flat tax rate across the board. No freeloaders on the bottom end of income earnings or the top because those of us who work our buns off for our families can't carry the weight of the country. But I don't think it's fair to take all of the money from the rich just because they're rich either.
The amount of people who quit working to get unemployment during covid proves that when basic necessities are provided people will stop working.

I agree with you. Sally's comment is nice, and it would be great if people really were like that, but it's very pie in the sky compared to reality.

I'm a landlord. Managing property, you see in graphic detail and up close the amount of people that don't want to work and don't have any personal pride or other, better things they want to accomplish as Sally suggested. They want to not make any sort of effort in life. They pride themselves on sliding by. Many consider it a victory. It's almost like a game to see how they can avoid working and coast.

It bothers me to see, because there are people that legitimately need help but can't get it because there's professional recipients on the dole that don't belong there. Our social programs would go so much farther if there weren't the professional recipients. It seems to me our programs need to revise how they qualify people, in order to cut some of this out.

There's businesses constantly advertising to hire workers. There's businesses that are closing earlier and reducing hours because they don't have enough people. Why are businesses so short staffed then if people would rather work then collect?

Anyone else see the videos constantly popping up of the low lives busting into stores with trash bags, stealing merchandise and running out? I guess they must just be entrepreneurs, setting up their own business of fencing someone else's merchandise that the victim paid for.

We just had 2 Brinks carriers robbed at gunpoint over the last couple of days. Those fine gentlemen must have set up their own cash transportation business and just were helping Brinks I guess.

None of this is a hallmark of a society full of people that want to work and take pride in themselves. It might have been like that in the 1950s, but now we have a fully blown entitlement mindset we're dealing with.

I truly do wish Sally's perception was reality. We could accomplish some wonderful things as a society if it was.

I've always thought that quote was very accurate. What you say makes sense and I agree with you. The generation before that's raising the current generation does bear responsibility.

I suppose it's human nature. When things are good, life is easier and you ease up the gas pedal. That quote should probably circulate more widely as a sort of cautionary warning.

It's kind of like why you shouldn't wear sweatpants all the time. You won't feel the creep of your waistband getting tighter! LOL

[Valentina327]

You're crazy in thinking that people will always want to earn more and work harder. I know plenty of people who would rather live on social services than get a job.
Personally I think there should be a flat tax rate across the board. No freeloaders on the bottom end of income earnings or the top because those of us who work our buns off for our families can't carry the weight of the country. But I don't think it's fair to take all of the money from the rich just because they're rich either.
The amount of people who quit working to get unemployment during covid proves that when basic necessities are provided people will stop working.

I agree with you. Sally's comment is nice, and it would be great if people really were like that, but it's very pie in the sky compared to reality.

I'm a landlord. Managing property, you see in graphic detail and up close the amount of people that don't want to work and don't have any personal pride or other, better things they want to accomplish as Sally suggested. They want to not make any sort of effort in life. They pride themselves on sliding by. Many consider it a victory. It's almost like a game to see how they can avoid working and coast.

It bothers me to see, because there are people that legitimately need help but can't get it because there's professional recipients on the dole that don't belong there. Our social programs would go so much farther if there weren't the professional recipients. It seems to me our programs need to revise how they qualify people, in order to cut some of this out.

There's businesses constantly advertising to hire workers. There's businesses that are closing earlier and reducing hours because they don't have enough people. Why are businesses so short staffed then if people would rather work then collect?

Anyone else see the videos constantly popping up of the low lives busting into stores with trash bags, stealing merchandise and running out? I guess they must just be entrepreneurs, setting up their own business of fencing someone else's merchandise that the victim paid for.

We just had 2 Brinks carriers robbed at gunpoint over the last couple of days. Those fine gentlemen must have set up their own cash transportation business and just were helping Brinks I guess.

None of this is a hallmark of a society full of people that want to work and take pride in themselves. It might have been like that in the 1950s, but now we have a fully blown entitlement mindset we're dealing with.

I truly do wish Sally's perception was reality. We could accomplish some wonderful things as a society if it was.

You sound just like my grandma.

She's clearly a wise woman.

[WellPreserved]

I kinda don’t care how you think it sounds… I’m sorry.

The schools in bad neighborhoods are easier to get A’s in.


How much a kid tries in school, will matter.
The ones who value education will succeed, they will get scholarships and funding and they will get the keys to a successful life.

The ones who don’t care, won’t.

This is a sad commentary on public school education.

Lowest performing schools means that kids in that district aren't trying enough.
Highest performing schools means that kids are better motivated.

Isn't that terribly simplistic (and horrendously bigoted) to assume that a certain economic demographic of children are trying less than another?

Again, kids will typically live up to their expectations.

A kid who is expected and pushed to do well will succeed regardless of financial status as a child. Plenty of rich adults grew up poor .

Kids who aren’t really expected to do anything with their lives usually don’t, unless they get some sort of epiphany later on in life, which is rare.


It’s pretty dependent on the parenting also.

That's certainly a convenient argument for those who don't want to pay higher property taxes or see their taxes go towards improvements to public education but does it really follow through in statistics?

I mean, those schools which see better outcomes have higher revenue.
Those schools which don't, just don't.

Is the problem that the schools with lesser outcomes have low incentive learners or just less resources?

If you believe that those schools have low incentive learners and understanding that those schools tend to be particular demographics, is it your understanding that those in certain demographics just don't care about learning for their children? That their children are not as motivated to learn and are therefore not entitled for as high as a quality of education? Think about that for just a minute and move that demographic out of the urban area you grew up in into the rural area you currently live. Do you still feel the same?