Understanding the Issues: Education

I get what you're saying, and for the record I am for the idea of providing after-care to kids from low-income households. It's about the kids first and foremost.

But regarding the general discussion, do you really think you're 100% the product of your environment and upbringing? I don't, I think my parents provided guidance and tremendous support, which is a big part of getting a solid start in life. But at the same time, I also think I'm my own man. I've learned some things from my parents, but other things and decisions they'd make I totally disagree with. And I'd do it a different way. The difference is, no matter what decisions I make, I would never expect my parents to accept any responsibility for a bad decision I made. I grew up to make my own decisions. They guided me, but in the end, I OWN my decisions. And I'll stand by and accept the consequences of all of them.

I expect EVERYONE to do the same, regardless of upbringing. Be your own man and don't cop out.

100%? No. But I'm not going to even venture a guess or try to assign a percentage as to how much your environment and upbringing contributes. I would say that it's very critical though.

Yea, out of a 1,000 students all but three where working at their second job. Funny thing is the lady that is working so hard to form the PTA and trying to get parents involved is finding the time working THREE jobs. Your kind of thinking and making excuses for these people is part of the problem. I'm not saying your totaly wrong and that maybe some were working at there second job. This lady had notices out one month prior to their first meeting so thats still not a good excuse. By reading your post and others I think we all agree that these children need help because their parents are not doing their job its how they are helped we disagree on.

Good response.

Second jobs and late night shifts can explain SOME of the absences. But 3 parents out of 1000? That simply shows a lack of involvement and total apathy. Lord knows, the only way to get a school board or administration to make ANY changes at all is to get the parents in an uproar.

Principals and teachers are people. People like and are used to the status quo. If you don't do something to break the inertia, the status quo will remain in effect. No amount of government funding is ever going to change that.

The only way to get schools to change is for the parents to organize and be a pain in the ass so large that it makes change the easier option for the school to deal with. You have to make the school choose between dealing with change, or dealing with the pissed off parents. They'll simply take the path of least resistance. It's human nature, it works in business, in politics, in schools, when you call up your phone company screaming for customer service... everywhere.

And if you have 3 people showing up for a PTA meeting, you're not going to change anything.

How is that going to happen exactly?

If the gov't isn't helping how is a community supposed to fix things on their own? The gov't has to play a role somewhere along the way in terms of funding and social service programs.
Well first I'm not saying do away with all federal programs but I don't want to add another program. Well the money used by the federal goverment came from people in the communities that they send the money back to for programs. The problem is the federal goverment eats away at the money because we have to pay for all those buildings and employees to process the money we send to them which they send back. That really makes good sense. So now that 4 dollars comes back as 1 dollar (thats just an example but I'm sure it not off by much). Maybe the federal goverment could just leave the money in the local goverment so they could provide the right services need for their area.

I get what you're saying, and for the record I am for the idea of providing after-care to kids from low-income households. It's about the kids first and foremost.

But regarding the general discussion, do you really think you're 100% the product of your environment and upbringing? I don't, I think my parents provided guidance and tremendous support, which is a big part of getting a solid start in life. But at the same time, I also think I'm my own man. I've learned some things from my parents, but other things and decisions they'd make I totally disagree with. And I'd do it a different way. The difference is, no matter what decisions I make, I would never expect my parents to accept any responsibility for a bad decision I made. I grew up to make my own decisions. They guided me, but in the end, I OWN my decisions. And I'll stand by and accept the consequences of all of them.

I expect EVERYONE to do the same, regardless of upbringing. Be your own man and don't cop out.

Your parents provided you with a foundation, and you use that foundation to make rational choices. Take away the foundation, and it's like asking a 10 year old to read a 200 page book without ever teaching him how to read - it just isn't going to work out well in most cases. Then you blame the kid for falling behind in school.

You can't just assume away the lack of guidance in upbringing.

Well first I'm not saying do away with all federal programs but I don't want to add another program. Well the money used by the federal goverment came from people in the communities that they send the money back to for programs. The problem is the federal goverment eats away at the money because we have to pay for all those buildings and employees to process the money we send to them which they send back. That really makes good sense. So now that 4 dollars comes back as 1 dollar (thats just an example but I'm sure it not off by much). Maybe the federal goverment could just leave the money in the local goverment so they could provide the right services need for their area.

Which program was it that you don't want to add? I'm asking seriously - the thread is getting long, so it's hard to keep up.

I believe that some people perceive that the "government is not the solution, it's the problem" crowd has an oppressive, people be damned mentality. But, speaking at least for myself, that is not the case. These programs that help "show people the way", are undoubtedly important. But I believe it should be exactly, to show them the way so they can go it alone next time (or sometime in the future). It's akin to the "buy a man a fish, he'll eat for a day, but teach him to fish and he'll eat for life" mantra. I understand though, that for some people they will never be in position to go it alone. But I believe, perhaps naively, those cases are not as frequent nor as numerous as we tend to think.

These people are 36.5 million strong according to the latest Census Bureau numbers (http://www.census.gov/prod/2007pubs/p60-233.pdf) (p. 19). Right now they're having to make decision whether to eat or put gas in the tank and while you and I can go to the grocery store and buy what we want they are increasingly unable to afford basic food (28 million Americans (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/31/us/31foodstamps.html?_r=1) on food stamps).

100%? No. But I'm not going to even venture a guess or try to assign a percentage as to how much your environment and upbringing contributes. I would say that it's very critical though.

And I would say if people are not willing to take 100% responsibility for their actions and decisions, and instead choose to place blame on others, they're not worth helping.

Anyone who recognizes that their actions put them in a bad situation, they've probably learned from it. And I'm all for helping them. Take the mortgage crisis. If people weren't properly educated by lenders that their payments will increase in 5 years when the adjustable term expires, and they now realize that they needed to ask more questions and be more scrutinizing when acquiring financing, then I'm all for helping to bail them out. But if people want to point fingers at the lenders and call themselves a victim, that indicates a person who is likely to repeat the same mistake.

In order to truly learn from a bad decision, you have to recognize the ways in which you could have prevented the bad decision from being made. In the case of mortgages, the realization has to be that next time I'm going to be mindful of all the ways in which my monthly payment can potentially change.

Good response.

Second jobs and late night shifts can explain SOME of the absences. But 3 parents out of 1000? That simply shows a lack of involvement and total apathy. Lord knows, the only way to get a school board or administration to make ANY changes at all is to get the parents in an uproar.

Principals and teachers are people. People like and are used to the status quo. If you don't do something to break the inertia, the status quo will remain in effect. No amount of government funding is ever going to change that.

The only way to get schools to change is for the parents to organize and be a pain in the ass so large that it makes change the easier option for the school to deal with. You have to make the school choose between dealing with change, or dealing with the pissed off parents. They'll simply take the path of least resistance. It's human nature, it works in business, in politics, in schools, when you call up your phone company screaming for customer service... everywhere.

And if you have 3 people showing up for a PTA meeting, you're not going to change anything.

You speak of environment not playing or even a minimal roll in a person’s success is absurd. If you are growing up in an environment where education is not regarded you most likely are not going to care about it.

If you had to put your money on who will succeed in life, would it be the child born and raised in McLean or the child born and raised in inner city DC. Not saying the DC kid won’t make it but the odds are stacked against him.

Also you speak of making the right decisions, which is true but explain to me what decision the DC child makes when he is handed (or not even given) a vandalized text book to learn from.

In the end the majority of people become the product of their environment

And I would say if people are not willing to take 100% responsibility for their actions and decisions, and instead choose to place blame on others, they're not worth helping.

Anyone who recognizes that their actions put them in a bad situation, they've probably learned from it. And I'm all for helping them. Take the mortgage crisis. If people weren't properly educated by lenders that their payments will increase in 5 years when the adjustable term expires, and they now realize that they needed to ask more questions and be more scrutinizing when acquiring financing, then I'm all for helping to bail them out. But if people want to point fingers at the lenders and call themselves a victim, that indicates a person who is likely to repeat the same mistake.

In order to truly learn from a bad decision, you have to recognize the ways in which you could have prevented the bad decision from being made. In the case of mortgages, the realization has to be that next time I'm going to be mindful of all the ways in which my monthly payment can potentially change.
But there's no difference between your scenario and someone who grew up without any guidance and made a bad choice, but who now wants help establishing the very environment you and I were lucky enough to have as youths.

But there's no difference between your scenario and someone who grew up without any guidance and made a bad choice, but who now wants help establishing the very environment you and I were lucky enough to have as youths.

We keep talking about needing guidance in order to make decisions.

Aren't most decisions made with basic common sense? How much guidance do you need for that? That's my whole thing here, how much do parents REALLY affect your upbringing? Plenty, I'm not saying it plays no role, but it doesn't play a big enough that it excuses away a lack of common sense.

If you go into a lender, and they tell you you're going to have an adjustable rate mortgage and your payment will be $500 a month for a $300,000 house, shouldn't a red flag be going up in your head? You mean to tell me you need a good home and a good upbringing to be able to tell when something seems too good to be true?

When someone tells you $500 payment on a $300,000 house, your first question should be OK what's the catch? If they say no catch, you have a legal case.

You don't have to know financing or know how real estate works. But you should be able to follow your nose when you smell something rotten. And at the very least, you should be able to ask "How is it possible for me to pay $500 a month on a $300,000 house?" Ask the basic questions until you understand it, even if they seem stupid. If you can't understand how it works on a basic level, then you shouldn't be making that deal. Isn't that just basic common sense/street smarts? I don't think you need a tremendous support system to exercise common sense and decent judgment.