Seriously thoughtful The three mass shootings this month - are they related to the recession?

[kazbates]

Originally Posted by Xenophon

While writing the latter, I noticed a possible correlation amongst my wife's adult literacy students. No, it's not racial -- bite your tongue! Rather, they all describe having stopped learning at some point in school (often quite young!), and having been promoted from one grade to the next anyway. In many cases, they tried to start learning again years later, but were so far behind what was (supposedly) being taught in the classes that it was a hopeless effort. Does this perhaps suggest that the common "social promotion" policy followed in US public schools might not be the best idea?

Thoughts, anyone? Kazbates?
Xenophon

Ever heard the saying, "Everything I needed to know, I learned in Kindergarten?" At the most basic level, this is pretty much true.

As I am not currently working, I can only speak for my old school system. The last thing we wanted to do was retain a child. We jumped through numerous hoops involving after school tutoring, staff support, targeted lesson planning, etc to help a struggling child succeed. We did not "social promote". If the student went on to the next level, there were programs set up at that level to continue with the additional support needed.

I still believe it all goes back to parental involvement. I stopped working to stay home with my children, I was one of the lucky ones who could. I sit with my second grader everyday while she does her homework and sat with my older children while they did theirs, even though I had a full-time job that required a great deal of homework on my part. I gave up reading, crafting, sleeping, all the things I love to do to be there for my children. Don't get me wrong, I'm not selfless. I just made a committment to my children when I decided to have them. I even had a surprise baby when I was 41 (the doctors told me I couldn't carry anymore babies to term and then, "Surprise" ) so I understand that accidents/blessings happen. But when she came along, I re-evaluated my life and made the necessary changes to make sure she had the best of me I could give. Are my older two college age children completely successful? No. Just like the rest of us, they have to deal with the foibles of life as they come along. But, hopeful, they have a good foundation to build upon and so will my youngest when her time comes.

The educational system is too easy of a target to place the blame for the ills of the world and teachers get way too much of that blame.
Kaz

[zerospinboson]

Originally Posted by Xenophon

"truths" about specific ethnic groups often seem overgeneralized (at best). But there are some statements we can make legitimately (I think). For example:

• In the US, children from the Asian immigrant community (that's of Japanese, Chinese, Korean, etc.) have historically averaged somewhat higher grades than their non-immigrant classmates.
• Most hispanics in the US are Roman Catholic.
• In the mid-1800s the Irish were considered the least-desirable of all immigrant groups. Two generations later, the stereotype was the "Irish Policeman." Now, nobody notices whether or not you're Irish except on St. Patrick's Day (when the entire country is "Irish").

It wasn't so much the "lower SES children underperform" thing that bothered me. It was that the blame for that was put on the lower SES children (or their parents), after what, 1 fully grown & children of their own generation of affirmative action?
Like you said, two generations later. Following your logic, you seem to be implying that racism doesn't matter, because "things will turn out all right" a generation or two later. (Considering that the prejudice against Irish, and later Italians etc. also came from Social Darwinist/racist thinking, with the IQ test being "invented" specifically for the purpose of "proving" they were less intelligent, by doing silly stuff like pointing at pictures of bowling alleys and asking what was missing from them. Social sciences indeed.)

My thing I took issue with, however, hardly was that there are legitimate and illegitimate generalizations.
Even when you ignore the fact that we have no negative connotations with "smarter" and "Roman Catholic", there is a qualitative difference between "most hispanics are RC", as these statements have no evaluative component, whereas (per your example) "most (really all) Irish people are backwards" or worse, "blacks force us to change the country('s educational standards) for the worse" do, and rather big ones at that.
I'm perfectly aware of the trend and problem she was hinting at, I just don't like where she put the explanation/blame for it.

Again, things don't change overnight, nor even over one or two generations (considering that black people suffered a rather longer period of slavery and social segregation than the irish did, what with the fact that they weren't "expected" to hold any respectable jobs.), but I still fail to see how impatience for improvement is an excuse for prejudicial thinking of that sort.
The problem of "inner city schooling" came up when, in the early 1990s? I'm guessing it had something to do with the affluent part of society fleeing inner cities to the suburbs, and that came up in the '80s or so, so that leaves (working from the assumption that schools were really, really great after the segregation ended, which wasn't at the same time in every state) less than 30 years, or a generation and a half or so of people who got a good chance at a decent education, after which the odds for that started decreasing, because the better teachers didn't want to teach at problem schools anymore.
Sure, "standards were lowered", but I'm guessing that was more because the costs went up and people became less willing or able to pay for these (as well as added costs needed for the extra schooling needed mentioned by kazbates) than it was because that one ethnic group (that only makes up 12% of the population) was really that incorrigible.

So yes, I could've done as you do, and "ignored" that part of the statement, but I don't really see why offhand remarks like that one should go unchallenged.

[Xenophon]

Originally Posted by zerospinboson

It wasn't so much the "lower SES children underperform" thing that bothered me. It was that the blame for that was put on the lower SES children (or their parents), after what, 1 fully grown & children of their own generation of affirmative action?
Like you said, two generations later. Following your logic, you seem to be implying that racism doesn't matter, because "things will turn out all right" a generation or two later. (Considering that the prejudice against Irish, and later Italians etc. also came from Social Darwinist/racist thinking, with the IQ test being "invented" specifically for the purpose of "proving" they were less intelligent, by doing silly stuff like pointing at pictures of bowling alleys and asking what was missing from them. Social sciences indeed.)

I must have written poorly. The statements I wrote were chosen because I thought I could write them in an appropriately value-neutral way, not because I was trying to use their content to make a point.

Originally Posted by zerospinboson

My thing I took issue with, however, hardly was that there are legitimate and illegitimate generalizations.
Even when you ignore the fact that we have no negative connotations with "smarter" and "Roman Catholic", there is a qualitative difference between "most hispanics are RC", as these statements have no evaluative component, whereas (per your example) "most (really all) Irish people are backwards" or worse, "blacks force us to change the country('s educational standards) for the worse" do, and rather big ones at that.
I'm perfectly aware of the trend and problem she was hinting at, I just don't like where she put the explanation/blame for it.

Um... That's pretty much the point I was after. I guess I just wasn't direct enough.

Originally Posted by zerospinboson

[SNIP -- mostly 'cause I don't disagree (much)]
The problem of "inner city schooling" came up when, in the early 1990s? I'm guessing it had something to do with the affluent part of society fleeing inner cities to the suburbs, and that came up in the '80s or so, so that leaves (working from the assumption that schools were really, really great after the segregation ended, which wasn't at the same time in every state) less than 30 years, or a generation and a half or so of people who got a good chance at a decent education, after which the odds for that started decreasing, because the better teachers didn't want to teach at problem schools anymore.
Sure, "standards were lowered", but I'm guessing that was more because the costs went up and people became less willing or able to pay for these (as well as added costs needed for the extra schooling needed mentioned by kazbates) than it was because that one ethnic group (that only makes up 12% of the population) was really that incorrigible.

So yes, I could've done as you do, and "ignored" that part of the statement, but I don't really see why offhand remarks like that one should go unchallenged.

The "problem of inner city schooling" began to appear in the 1950s, but didn't have that name yet. Back then it took the form (in the North) of worse results for "the school on the wrong side of the tracks" (perhaps due to lower funding, perhaps other factors -- I make no claim here as to why). BTW, the "wrong side of the tracks" definitely held the lower SES folks, but that was usually a racially mixed group. This problem, however, is not what I was after in my prior message. Rather, I was attempting to poke you to attack the generalizations for their (perhaps unintentional and probably-but-not-certainly-unwarranted) negative connotations, rather than for being "generalizations."

And I was also trying to poke DG (and any others whose statements I missed) to write a bit more carefully. More careful statements would either (a) decrease the level of "you're just generalizing" rejoinders and so help us focus on specific issues in society, or (b) really clarify the posters attitude (and the reasons for it) so that we can usefully discuss those issues.

The in-between generalization-with-bad-connotations form leads to flame-wars and talking at cross purposes IMNSHO (In My Not So Humble Opinion). More careful writing (from all comers) leads to more productive discussion.

Xenophon

P.S. And what does NOFI stand for???

P.P.S And since I, of course, NEVER get my wording wrong or write in ways that create an unintended impression... ...I'm expecting a hail of incoming rocks from those whose writing styles I just disparaged. <Ow. OWWWW!!!>

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by Xenophon

P.S. And what does NOFI stand for???

It's a new one on me, too, but a Google search suggests that it might be "no flame intended".

[Xenophon]

Kazbates wrote (in part): "The educational system is too easy of a target to place the blame for the ills of the world and teachers get way too much of that blame."

A few summers ago I took a trip through the American West with a group that included one of my teenage nephews (from NJ) and a good friend of his whose family had moved to the UK a few years earlier. Apparently, due to some then-hot news piece in the UK, the trendy statement there was "I blame the teachers."

So, every time anything went wrong it was "I blame the teachers." A traffic jam -- "I blame the teachers." A flat tire -- "I blame the teachers." Someone in the group mis-spoke and insulted everyone in sight (quite unintentionally) -- "I blame the teachers." It rapidly became one of the funniest bits of the whole trip. Not least because of the wildly inappropriate use to which it was put.

Xenophon