4 ms·

So basically you are saying that poor kids have no "potential to succeed" and should be kept segregated?

Chronic51 10y ago
Yes. We do the exact same with disabled students. Yet no one talks about them. I suppose because it is because "looking out for the poor" makes people feel good.
- Throwaway23412 10y ago
  Aren't public schools supposed to have special education resources? I don't know about other schools but the schools I grew up in had disabled students. They just often weren't in the same classes as the higher-achieving kids. But that's no different from students being in different accelerated, AP, or IB classes.
- galactus 10y ago
  Interesting. How do you plan to keep the plebs from revolting once you eliminate the last vestige of social mobility?
  - tamana 10y ago
    They are exhausted from working minimum wage jobs, and the police will clean up any rabble-rousers.
clevernickname 10y ago
The most important factor in the success of a child is arguably the stability of their home life. A poor kid with two dedicated parents can very easily get further in life than the wealthy child of a nasty divorce. And left in the dust is the kid that was "raised by the wolves," so to speak, in a ghetto, no matter how much government assistance the family receives to normalize their situation. Higher income of course confers countless perks that the highest achievers can take advantage of, but when understanding the majority of the population it is most useful as a heuristic for stability of home life. It is nearly impossible to do justice to both sides when they are starting from such different places in life. How do you level the playing field when one was read bedtime stories to since they were a toddler and the other entered school not knowing how to read? How does the kid from an average nuclear family fare with the kids whose parents cannot even be trusted to feed them? How does a kid sheltered in a quiet suburban neighborhood feel safe around a kid that grew up fighting on the streets? For decades the focus of the system has very clearly been on trying to offset the damage incurred in the home life of these children. And sadly, it has utterly failed at fixing multigenerational poverty. Indeed, policies stemming from No Child Left Behind seem to have made the problem even worse, raising generations of problem children who have been emboldened by weak administration that provides little consequence for consistently disrupting classes or assaulting students or even teachers! The sad truth is that you can't fix home problems at school, and that our educational and social policies have only enabled the proliferation of broken homes.
- tamana 10y ago
  You just said that rich kids are too weak to survive in the real world, and the solution for that is to crack down on poor kids.

Yes. We do the exact same with disabled students. Yet no one talks about them. I suppose because it is because "looking out for the poor" makes people feel good.

Throwaway23412 10y ago
Aren't public schools supposed to have special education resources? I don't know about other schools but the schools I grew up in had disabled students. They just often weren't in the same classes as the higher-achieving kids. But that's no different from students being in different accelerated, AP, or IB classes.
galactus 10y ago
Interesting. How do you plan to keep the plebs from revolting once you eliminate the last vestige of social mobility?
- tamana 10y ago
  They are exhausted from working minimum wage jobs, and the police will clean up any rabble-rousers.

clevernickname 10y ago

The most important factor in the success of a child is arguably the stability of their home life. A poor kid with two dedicated parents can very easily get further in life than the wealthy child of a nasty divorce. And left in the dust is the kid that was "raised by the wolves," so to speak, in a ghetto, no matter how much government assistance the family receives to normalize their situation. Higher income of course confers countless perks that the highest achievers can take advantage of, but when understanding the majority of the population it is most useful as a heuristic for stability of home life. It is nearly impossible to do justice to both sides when they are starting from such different places in life. How do you level the playing field when one was read bedtime stories to since they were a toddler and the other entered school not knowing how to read? How does the kid from an average nuclear family fare with the kids whose parents cannot even be trusted to feed them? How does a kid sheltered in a quiet suburban neighborhood feel safe around a kid that grew up fighting on the streets? For decades the focus of the system has very clearly been on trying to offset the damage incurred in the home life of these children. And sadly, it has utterly failed at fixing multigenerational poverty. Indeed, policies stemming from No Child Left Behind seem to have made the problem even worse, raising generations of problem children who have been emboldened by weak administration that provides little consequence for consistently disrupting classes or assaulting students or even teachers! The sad truth is that you can't fix home problems at school, and that our educational and social policies have only enabled the proliferation of broken homes.

tamana 10y ago
You just said that rich kids are too weak to survive in the real world, and the solution for that is to crack down on poor kids.