re: "Stop blaming black parents for underachieving kids"

quote:

---

I definitely agree its the parents, but let's not pretend that these schools in urban areas are run well.

---

Yes, and I would like to have even more ways for kids who want to learn to get out and go to a different school via vouchers, etc.

That being said: It's still the parents (collective) who are responsible for those terrible schools. The difference in a slightly lower than average school versus a bad school versus a terrible school is just the number of kids who don't care (i.e. parents who don't care).

quote:

---

Yes, and I would like to have even more ways for kids who want to learn to get out and go to a different school via vouchers, etc.

---

I love vouchers, but I think all they will do is put the kids who have parents that don't care in the same school. Will end up more like a prison than a school.

But if I was a parent in a city, give me vouchers! at least you can improve your lot.

quote:

---

That being said: It's still the parents (collective) who are responsible for those terrible schools.

---

I would actually say its the communities faults. Everyone would benefit if the schools were better, not just parents.

His exact quote:

quote:

---

It's a tangled web, but I firmly believe that when women (even young girls) started viewing sex the same as every hard-legged 16 yr old boy, our moral fibre began unravelling.

---

Do you honestly agree with this? Our moral fiber began unravelling when women started to view sex as young men do? I am of the opinion that our changing views on sex as a society have nothing to do with our success as a country, especially with respect to kids underachieving in the classroom. I also believe it nonsensical to make a point specific to women changing their views as an example of moral decline. Why the gender distinction? His point is equally made if he suggested the unravelling commenced when the entire population started viewing sex like young men do. He is blaming women specifically as the precipitating factor. There's an innate sexism in that blame that detracts from the argument in my opinion. You are free to disagree obviously.

I will concede my burqa comment was over-the-top and added nothing constructive to the conversation.

I read a fascinating study on 'parental expectations and race' many years ago. White, Asian and Black children (middle school and HS) were asked this question:

Re: the letter grades A,B,C,D,F....at what grade on your report card would your parents get angry and punish you?

Asian answer... 'B'
White answer... 'C'
Black answer... 'F'

The study did not include Hispanics because this was about 20 years ago and the Hispanic population was not nearly as large as now.

quote:

---

Yes, and I would like to have even more ways for kids who want to learn to get out and go to a different school....

---

Welcome to the republican party. You might want to duck. A lot of people with a vested interest in preserving the status quo are threatened by your position.

It's unfair and inhumane to force students who care about their future into most of the urban public schools in my city. They should be allowed to attend either a private school via voucher or a magnet program that will actually challenge them in a safe place. In a perfect world, they can may have a choice depending on their aptitude or interest in various subjects.

The students whose parents do not care may do better in a more structured educational environment with a focus on mentorship and discipline.....and this is unfortunately a huge block of students in many areas.

What we have now in many urban areas (and in many poor rural areas) is a setup that sucks for everyone. This "one sized fits all" approach has been outdated since we've moved from single room school houses. Some kids are going to want more math and science, some are going to need better arts, film or lit programs, some others are going to gravitate towards technology, others towards athletics, etc.

What a load of BS. The black man who cleans my wife's office has five children and every one of them are college educated and beyond. One is fixing to graduate from medical school. Why? Because he, as a parent, valued education and made sure his kids didn't end up with the wrong crowd. He laments, sometimes to the point of tears, to my wife everyday about the state of the black family and how it's virtually non-existent in some places and how "keepin' it real" is more important that growing up and prospering.

quote:

---

There is no other alternative. Take responsibility. Overcome obstacles. Persevere.

---

who are you, and how did you get a want's login info?

quote:

---

I took his comments to mean the increase in numbers of sexual partners and lack of concern about out of wetlock births leads to more one or no parent homes. This change in sexual attitudes also has lead to the huge increase in the amount of children being raised by grandparents or other relatives. I have never seen a single study or heard a single person state this is a good thing. Perhaps your opinion on this differs, mine is not a religeous or moral stance just a social one.

---

Independently, an increase in number of sexual partners is not a detriment to society. Similarly, society being more accepting of women with sexual freedom is not detrimental. Out of wedlock births also aren't problematic necessarily. The problem, I believe, is only when two parents are not present, and on that point we are in agreement. Given the difficulty in a child becoming a successful adult when both parents are not present, I always hugely admire single parents who commit to ensuring the child has every opportunity to succeed in spite of the lack of the other parent.

quote:

---

Yes, they are. If the child comes before the commitment, then the likelihood of the mother having to raise the child by herself is pretty significant. Society, unfortunately, is far too accepting of absentee fathers.

---

The likelihood may rise, but until the parent actually leaves the house, there is no problem. An unmarried couple who decides to have kids and raise them together in a constructive way is in no way a detriment to society. The wedlock part is independently inconsequential.

quote:

---

The likelihood may rise, but until the parent actually leaves the house, there is no problem. An unmarried couple who decides to have kids and raise them together in a constructive way is in no way a detriment to society. The wedlock part is independently inconsequential

---

OK at this point we are arguing semantics. I agree with the other poster though out of wetlock births reduce the chances of a two parent home significantly. Sure there are two parent homes where the parents remain unmarried but the are like lottery winners few and far between. I would wager two parent unmarried households make up far less than 1% of our present demographics so that's is kind of a red herring you threw out there. Also the number of sexual partners you have certainly effects likelihood of not only getting married but staying together.