5 ms·

Well, it might be more than just 'high-quality' schools, but maybe that is necessary. That way you release the kids from their uneducated parents in some respec

by JepZ 8y ago

Well, it might be more than just 'high-quality' schools, but maybe that is necessary. That way you release the kids from their uneducated parents in some respect. The problem with uneducated parents is that they are still very valuable for the children in terms of emotional development. The problem however is, that they tend to make critical mistakes which sometimes affect the children's development. And to bridge those two aspects, this 'high-quality' school model might be a very good answer. Just to be clear: Not all uneducated parents are the same and some of them might be very good parents, its just that the probability of finding problematic behavior is much higher for uneducated parents.

Iv 8y ago
This is a think I wish more people understood: There is no equality of chances. Unless you give every kid the same standardized education and childhood experience, which implies a society no one wants. The only alternative is to recognize the people who start at a disadvantage and offer them compensation for that.
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
- didibus 8y ago
  > Unless you give every kid the same standardized education and childhood experience, which implies a society no one wants. I've always personally been open to this idea. I find families to be tribal and often problematic. I think it be nice to start seeing all children as your own, the children belong to society, and maybe we should all pay for them.
  - mamon 8y ago
    >> the children belong to society That's the dangerous way of thinking that we should avoid. Children belong to their parents, until they come out of age when they start "belonging" only to themselves. Seeing children as belonging to society is typical for totalitarian regimes (see: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hitler_Youth https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hitler_Youth)
    - croon 8y ago
      No, it's typical for any society. There's social services in most if not all industrialized societies, that can take children away from their parents for the sake of the child if the parent(s) are ill-equipped to raise them. That's not a bad thing.
      - waterhouse 8y ago
        > That's not a bad thing. For the record, I don't consider this obviously true. If you search "cps horror stories", some of the results are about horrible family situations that Child Protective Services has encountered, and others are about family situations that CPS has horribly mishandled. A couple of links focusing on the latter: https://parentalrights.org/child_protective_services/ https://parentalrights.org/child_protective_services/ https://lfb.org/confessions-of-an-ex-cps-agent/ https://lfb.org/confessions-of-an-ex-cps-agent/ I'm not sure if anyone has tried very hard to make a case that the good of CPS outweighs the bad.
      - bzbarsky 8y ago
        The problems start when "ill-equipped" is defined as expansively as possible. See the various cases of CPS getting involved when parents try to teach their kids basic independence by letting them walk to the playground on the corner and play there. I think the way CPS is currently done in the US is actually causing a great deal of harm to current kids whose parents are totally reasonable parents...
    - DomreiRoam 8y ago
      I just checked the definition of "belong" I didn't like the idea that parents own children . I did find to meanings: "be the property of" and "be a member of". So I really prefer to say that children are part of a society than children are owned by their parents. Could we say that children are part of our society and that parents are their guardians and primary educators? I would like to convey that we have shifted from the "pater familias" model to something different were we recognize that children are no more properties.
      - 8y ago
  - Andre_Wanglin 8y ago
    "Society" is just another tribe, one that may wish to eradicate your culture. In a multicultural society, whose tribe is deemed "problematic" and whose is "normal?"
  - Iv 8y ago
    Even by being open to the idea, it is easy to see that such a project will garner so much opposition as to be politically non viable. It is also very hard to achieve, as even if you break up the family structure, there will be a disparity of compétences accross the education institution and will also magnify genetic advantages and handicap, things that as a society we do not feel legitimate to attribute merit. I am open to the idea of banning inheritance though, which seems to me the most unfair family advantage out there.
- Andre_Wanglin 8y ago
  Your alternatives are bounded by a lack of imagination.
  - Iv 8y ago
    Pray tell which ones I missed.
    - your-nanny 8y ago
      Probably the ones that involve been cruelly indifferent to their fates.
      - Andre_Wanglin 8y ago
        Most people would welcome a government that is merely indifferent to them.
        your-nanny 8y ago
        Back that up with data, Nazi.
- gameswithgo 8y ago
  >The only alternative is to recognize the people who start at a disadvantage and offer them compensation for that. I don't know exactly what you mean there. Do you mean - let the kid develop sub-optimally and then when they grow up, give them a job even though they are less qualified? Because that is an idiotic alternative. Much better to do our best to get kids as close to equality of chance as possible by providing everyone with a high quality education and health care.
  - professorgerm 8y ago
    Likely they mean good ole original Marxism. "From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs" is a slogan popularised by Karl Marx.
  - Iv 8y ago
    No I mean that kids will be advantaged or disadvantaged because of the environment they grow in. We should identify people who are having a big handicap because of their environment and give them tools that others don't necessarily have to get over it. If you are born out of two drug-addict parents, even if you are given the same education tools as some from middle-class parents, you will likely perform less well. It is not a breach of equality to offer special classes to such kids.
MaysonL 8y ago
Note that one of the services that Harlem Children's Zone provides is teaching parents what they can do to help their kids succeed. See their "Baby College" for example.

by JepZ 8y ago

Iv 8y ago

This is a think I wish more people understood: There is no equality of chances. Unless you give every kid the same standardized education and childhood experience, which implies a society no one wants. The only alternative is to recognize the people who start at a disadvantage and offer them compensation for that.

deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
didibus 8y ago
> Unless you give every kid the same standardized education and childhood experience, which implies a society no one wants. I've always personally been open to this idea. I find families to be tribal and often problematic. I think it be nice to start seeing all children as your own, the children belong to society, and maybe we should all pay for them.
- mamon 8y ago
  >> the children belong to society That's the dangerous way of thinking that we should avoid. Children belong to their parents, until they come out of age when they start "belonging" only to themselves. Seeing children as belonging to society is typical for totalitarian regimes (see: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hitler_Youth https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hitler_Youth)
  - croon 8y ago
    No, it's typical for any society. There's social services in most if not all industrialized societies, that can take children away from their parents for the sake of the child if the parent(s) are ill-equipped to raise them. That's not a bad thing.
    - waterhouse 8y ago
      > That's not a bad thing. For the record, I don't consider this obviously true. If you search "cps horror stories", some of the results are about horrible family situations that Child Protective Services has encountered, and others are about family situations that CPS has horribly mishandled. A couple of links focusing on the latter: https://parentalrights.org/child_protective_services/ https://parentalrights.org/child_protective_services/ https://lfb.org/confessions-of-an-ex-cps-agent/ https://lfb.org/confessions-of-an-ex-cps-agent/ I'm not sure if anyone has tried very hard to make a case that the good of CPS outweighs the bad.
    - bzbarsky 8y ago
      The problems start when "ill-equipped" is defined as expansively as possible. See the various cases of CPS getting involved when parents try to teach their kids basic independence by letting them walk to the playground on the corner and play there. I think the way CPS is currently done in the US is actually causing a great deal of harm to current kids whose parents are totally reasonable parents...
  - DomreiRoam 8y ago
    I just checked the definition of "belong" I didn't like the idea that parents own children . I did find to meanings: "be the property of" and "be a member of". So I really prefer to say that children are part of a society than children are owned by their parents. Could we say that children are part of our society and that parents are their guardians and primary educators? I would like to convey that we have shifted from the "pater familias" model to something different were we recognize that children are no more properties.
    - 8y ago
- Andre_Wanglin 8y ago
  "Society" is just another tribe, one that may wish to eradicate your culture. In a multicultural society, whose tribe is deemed "problematic" and whose is "normal?"
- Iv 8y ago
  Even by being open to the idea, it is easy to see that such a project will garner so much opposition as to be politically non viable. It is also very hard to achieve, as even if you break up the family structure, there will be a disparity of compétences accross the education institution and will also magnify genetic advantages and handicap, things that as a society we do not feel legitimate to attribute merit. I am open to the idea of banning inheritance though, which seems to me the most unfair family advantage out there.
Andre_Wanglin 8y ago
Your alternatives are bounded by a lack of imagination.
- Iv 8y ago
  Pray tell which ones I missed.
  - your-nanny 8y ago
    Probably the ones that involve been cruelly indifferent to their fates.
    - Andre_Wanglin 8y ago
      Most people would welcome a government that is merely indifferent to them.
      - your-nanny 8y ago
        Back that up with data, Nazi.
gameswithgo 8y ago
>The only alternative is to recognize the people who start at a disadvantage and offer them compensation for that. I don't know exactly what you mean there. Do you mean - let the kid develop sub-optimally and then when they grow up, give them a job even though they are less qualified? Because that is an idiotic alternative. Much better to do our best to get kids as close to equality of chance as possible by providing everyone with a high quality education and health care.
- professorgerm 8y ago
  Likely they mean good ole original Marxism. "From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs" is a slogan popularised by Karl Marx.
- Iv 8y ago
  No I mean that kids will be advantaged or disadvantaged because of the environment they grow in. We should identify people who are having a big handicap because of their environment and give them tools that others don't necessarily have to get over it. If you are born out of two drug-addict parents, even if you are given the same education tools as some from middle-class parents, you will likely perform less well. It is not a breach of equality to offer special classes to such kids.

MaysonL 8y ago

Note that one of the services that Harlem Children's Zone provides is teaching parents what they can do to help their kids succeed. See their "Baby College" for example.