8 ms·

Others fall asleep immediately at school since they live with 5+ siblings and there are literally no available beds at home. I am not trying to blame the parent

by e40 8y ago

Others fall asleep immediately at school since they live with 5+ siblings and there are literally no available beds at home. I am not trying to blame the parents in all the cases either At some point, though, personal responsibility has to come into play. Having 5+ children when you have no resources... this is the true elephant in the room. It seems talking about it gets labels thrown around. I guess it's a conversation we can't have right now, though.

lexs 8y ago
Personal responsibility of the parent sure, but the child can't exactly ask to not be born.
- erikpukinskis 8y ago
  Also, is it personal responsibility if the state has put the parent in a situation where they will be systematically stripped of resources?
  - EpicEng 8y ago
    >Also, is it personal responsibility if the state has put the parent in a situation where they will be systematically stripped of resources? That is hardly the only problem. Society isn't at fault for all of the ills of low income areas.
    - mikepurvis 8y ago
      This is such a strange sentiment to me. Surely as a society there are many situations for which we take responsibility without assuming guilt?
      - swasheck 8y ago
        I do wish that this comment could serve as the banner comment for this post. It's such an immature response to assume that because you're taking responsibility to resolve or address something that it implies that you're to blame for it having occurred in the first place. This mentality is pervasive in the elementary and middle schools that my kids attend and it's unfortunate that adults haven't grown out of it. Thank you for your comment. True leadership says that we need to work toward fixing the problem, while selfish ambition says, "not my fault, not my problem."
        mixedCase 8y ago
        > True leadership says that we need to work toward fixing the problem, while selfish ambition says, "not my fault, not my problem." The sad reality is that in the other hand, thanks to the ever present tragedy of the commons, there are selfish people that take advantage of this thinking "someone will fix it, doesn't matter if I contribute to the problem for my own benefit".
        swasheck 8y ago
        I understand and appreciate your perspective on this. However, I'm not certain that those of us who are "haves" or who are privileged in some way can put the majority of the burden on those who are "have-nots" to simply stop what they're doing and wait for change. If the goal of our lives is to protect what we have, then I have a feeling that we're going to die with unfulfilled lives - we just may not know it until it's too late. [edit]typo: "doing" -> "going"
      - EpicEng 8y ago
        I didn't mean to say people who aren't directly responsible should shrug their shoulders and move on. I have this discussion with my wife often. How the hell do you help kids who have little to no support structure at home? Our federal and local governments often make it harder for these people, and I'm all for fixing that (with my notion of what a "fix" looks like of course.) That's not the entire story though; how do you make fathers stick around? How do you solve for poverty? You don't, at least, we have never been able to do so, and now you get into philosophical territory about whether or not that's even possible. My issue is that I have no idea how to fix it. Pumping more money into low income schools is not a cure-all. Don't get me wrong, it can help, but we have many cases where it made little to no difference because teachers and iPads can't do it all. Anyways, that's a lot of rambling. My point is that I don't think the sentiment of "these people are oppressed" (which is what I assume most mean when they say it's "society's fault") is correct. It's far more complicated than that.
    - stuckinarut 8y ago
      Society is entirely responsible for that.
erikpukinskis 8y ago
What do you mean “no resources”? These families have many resources... do you mean “no money”?
nkrisc 8y ago
Who's responsibility? Not the child's. This school is about helping the children who weren't given a say in the matter of their upbringing and existence.
- ryandrake 8y ago
  Why not both? Treat the symptom, getting help for these at-risk kids and work on the cause: figure out how to not get into this situation with all these at-risk kids to begin with. For some reason you can only talk about seatbelts—mentioning safe driving will get you downvotes.
  - nkrisc 8y ago
    Helping at-risk kids succeed is helping treat the cause. If you don't help these kids, they're going to grow up and have their own "at-risk" kids. And the cycle continues. These are efforts to break the cycle. This is proactive investment in the future.
pjc50 8y ago
Not in an environment where people are still trying to promote abstinence-only sex ed, no.
EpicEng 8y ago
You're getting downvoted, and maybe most of that is a sentiment of "we have to deal with the problem at hand", which is absolutely the only thing an outsider can do, but you're not wrong. My wife works in a low income school, largest and poorest in the area (a relatively large city.) Pumping more money in does not help. More after school problems does not help much. As far as academic achievement is concerned, these kids are completely stuck because they have what we would consider terrible situations at home. Sometimes the parents just don't care, sometimes they just don't have the time (multiple jobs). More often than not there is only one parent at home. There's only so much a teacher/school can do if the parent is picking up the ball when the kid gets home.
- yardie 8y ago
  I come from one of those large, poor inner city schools. The money and after school programs absolutely help. I am a product of those after school programs. That additional money paid for musical instruments, sports, computers, and transportation. I feel personally insulted when people say we shouldn't fund these afterschool programs because they don't feel they are working.
  - travmatt 8y ago
    Oddly enough, it’s usually the people not actually involved who are the experts on why we need to take more away from them.
  - textor 8y ago
    Anecdotal experiences are near worthless when discussing policies, though. Feel insulted all you like; statistically speaking, these resources are wasted. Chances are you'd be equally well off without them.
    - cardine 8y ago
      Anecdotal experiences are near worthless, but sweeping statements with no cited sources are equally as bad.
s73v3r_ 8y ago
"At some point, though, personal responsibility has to come into play." Only if you're looking to blame something so you can feel smugly superior to them. If you're looking to actually provide services or improve conditions, that's not something worth talking about, because it doesn't change conditions now. EDIT: And especially not when we're talking about Ohio, which is one of the states looking to outright ban abortion.
JamesBarney 8y ago
Are you arguing for better access to birth control? Or that the children should be punished for the sins of their mother?
- darepublic 8y ago
  Well like it or not, children do pay for the sins of their parents. It's not something to be argued for its simply the truth
  - jschwartzi 8y ago
    We're not arguing that it doesn't happen, we're arguing that it shouldn't.
  - salvar 8y ago
    So should we try to do more or less of it?
  - walshemj 8y ago
    As Max Mosley may have said "you can chose your friends you cannot chose your parents - He is the son of Oswald mosley btw.
- vxNsr 8y ago
  Someone might argue that people shouldn't engage in activities that have a strong probability of creating responsibilities they can't handle, no matter how good those initial activities feel. In other parts of society we'd say "Don't do the crime if you can't do the time." I know this is a very unpopular opinion the world over right now, but: This applies loosely to sex as well (Don't have sex if you can't afford to have kids).
  - jschwartzi 8y ago
    No, it sounds like you're arguing that the child should bear the burden of the parent's bad decisions. Ever hear the phrase "sins of the father?" The fact is the child has no control over their home environment, and you're effectively damning them to a life of lower achievement based on the fact that their parents can't afford enough bedding. Is that really the kind of world you want to live in?
verall 8y ago
I don't see how this is an elephant in the room or a conversation we can't have right now. Lets. What, besides providing extra resources to underpriveleged children so they are not punished for their parents mistakes, can be done? Are you suggesting we make their parents "pay" somehow? Or a program to prevent the parents from having 5+ kids when they don't have the resources?
- stuckinarut 8y ago
  better sex education, better access to contraceptives, better access to abortion. You don't punish the problem away, you help people avoid it themselves.
  - verall 8y ago
    I think this is a huge part of it. Even something as simple as free high-quality condoms or emergency contraception (morning-after) can make a huge difference when money is tight. Even better would be free birth-control medication or IUD's, as these put the birth control in the hands of women, while condoms especially might not be used in the face of social pressure.
  - naravara 8y ago
    I like the assumption that the 5+ kids are all just due to irresponsible people popping children out and not, say, the results of generous people fostering family members who would be in even worse situations otherwise or a mother who is being raped by a partner.
    - stuckinarut 8y ago
      I did make that assumption because it doesn't fucking matter why, those are all still things that should be done. Domestic violence is bad, fortunately we can focus on more than one damn thing.
    - dang 8y ago
      This comment breaks the site guidelines, which ask: Please respond to the strongest plausible interpretation of what someone says, not a weaker one that's easier to criticize. Please review https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and follow the rules when posting here.
staunch 8y ago
> At some point, though, personal responsibility has to come into play. It actually doesn't. Everyone is a responsible as they're capable of being, given their genetics and their environment. If you're a very responsible person it's because you were fortunate to have your particular genetics and/or environment. Some people are born into terrible environments but have the genetic luck to be highly responsible. Some people are born into great environments but have the genetic misfortune to be highly irresponsible. No one chooses to be responsible or irresponsible. The onus is on the genetically/environmentally lucky people to help the unlucky ones. There's absolutely no shame in being unlucky and no pride in being lucky. There isn't much the lucky people can do to improve genetics (yet) but there's a lot that can be done to improve environments.
- btkramer9 8y ago
  > No one chooses to be responsible or irresponsible. Really? Everyone's level of responsibility is purely based on a genetic lottery and have nothing to do with one's own willpower? edit: I can understand environment having an effect
  - staunch 8y ago
    Not just genetics. Your willpower is entirely dependent on your genetics and your environment. There are no other factors possible. No one chooses how much willpower they have, just like no one chooses how intelligent they are.
    - nugget 8y ago
      By your argument if somebody is lucky, successful, and prideful, but feels no desire to help others, wouldn't that apathy also be a result of genetics and environment? And thus you couldn't blame them for it or expect them to act any differently.
      - staunch 8y ago
        Exactly. You can certainly pity someone for lacking empathy but blaming them makes no sense. And behavior isn't necessarily a static thing. This same person might read a good book (which would become part environment) which might move them to be more empathetic.
jdavis703 8y ago
Along with "out-of-wedlock" births people also get divorced and/or die. I know two families where death is what caused a parent to become single. Life changes quickly (I grew up with a single mom, she got divorced because my dad developed a severe mental illness). Judging families by personal responsibility should really only be done on a case-by-case basis.
clairity 8y ago
how do you see people not taking personal responsibility in this regard? at an individual, or a population level? you seem to assume a lot about people "having 5+ children when you have no resources". even the idea of "no resources" has a number of in-built assumptions. what are they? do you work with populations of people like this? do you personally know people in this situation? are they truly hopeless? certainly we can have an adult conversation, but don't beat around the bush. start the conversation with an earnest and reasoned argument, rather than an inscrutable lament.
ygkevin 8y ago
It's not all about personal responsibility. Something to also consider is that the psychology of poverty also drives bad decisions [1]. Turns out the financial pressures that drive people to make bad decisions are also some of the pressures the I promise school is trying to alleviate. [1]: http://review.chicagobooth.edu/behavioral-science/2018/article/how-poverty-changes-your-mind-set http://review.chicagobooth.edu/behavioral-science/2018/artic...
dragonwriter 8y ago
> Having 5+ children when you have no resources... Isn't that surprising; globally, number of children goes down with both prosperity and, even controlling for prosperity, strength of social safety nets (a common explanation for the latter being that with no or weak public safety net, your children are your old-age social safety net.) The US has been proudly dismantling it's social safety net since the 1990s, and it already was notoriously weak for the developed world. Simultaneously, access to birth control and abortion is also under perennial assault, and even where access is maintained, well-funded shame campaigns are directed against both. Strangely, the people backing all of those efforts are also the ones that complain the most about poor people having too many kids. And do so under the banner of “personal responsibility”, without any hint of intentional irony.
salvar 8y ago
Of course personal responsibility comes into play. But what do you want to do about it? The child already exists and we can't go back in time, so no preventing that. Do we give the child the best opportunity it can get, or somehow use it to punish the parents for their decision making?
forapurpose 8y ago
> Having 5+ children when you have no resources... this is the true elephant in the room. What makes you say that's an actual problem that has a significant impact on American education?
kmkemp 8y ago
Of course, the parent could have also been very responsible. Maybe they were married with a nice income. Fast forward 10 years and their spouse has died or went to prison and they lost their nice job and now have to work multiple lower paying jobs. There are a multitude of circumstances that could put you in a position that you didn't foresee.

by e40 8y ago

lexs 8y ago

Personal responsibility of the parent sure, but the child can't exactly ask to not be born.

erikpukinskis 8y ago
Also, is it personal responsibility if the state has put the parent in a situation where they will be systematically stripped of resources?
- EpicEng 8y ago
  >Also, is it personal responsibility if the state has put the parent in a situation where they will be systematically stripped of resources? That is hardly the only problem. Society isn't at fault for all of the ills of low income areas.
  - mikepurvis 8y ago
    This is such a strange sentiment to me. Surely as a society there are many situations for which we take responsibility without assuming guilt?
    - swasheck 8y ago
      I do wish that this comment could serve as the banner comment for this post. It's such an immature response to assume that because you're taking responsibility to resolve or address something that it implies that you're to blame for it having occurred in the first place. This mentality is pervasive in the elementary and middle schools that my kids attend and it's unfortunate that adults haven't grown out of it. Thank you for your comment. True leadership says that we need to work toward fixing the problem, while selfish ambition says, "not my fault, not my problem."
      - mixedCase 8y ago
        > True leadership says that we need to work toward fixing the problem, while selfish ambition says, "not my fault, not my problem." The sad reality is that in the other hand, thanks to the ever present tragedy of the commons, there are selfish people that take advantage of this thinking "someone will fix it, doesn't matter if I contribute to the problem for my own benefit".
        swasheck 8y ago
        I understand and appreciate your perspective on this. However, I'm not certain that those of us who are "haves" or who are privileged in some way can put the majority of the burden on those who are "have-nots" to simply stop what they're doing and wait for change. If the goal of our lives is to protect what we have, then I have a feeling that we're going to die with unfulfilled lives - we just may not know it until it's too late. [edit]typo: "doing" -> "going"
    - EpicEng 8y ago
      I didn't mean to say people who aren't directly responsible should shrug their shoulders and move on. I have this discussion with my wife often. How the hell do you help kids who have little to no support structure at home? Our federal and local governments often make it harder for these people, and I'm all for fixing that (with my notion of what a "fix" looks like of course.) That's not the entire story though; how do you make fathers stick around? How do you solve for poverty? You don't, at least, we have never been able to do so, and now you get into philosophical territory about whether or not that's even possible. My issue is that I have no idea how to fix it. Pumping more money into low income schools is not a cure-all. Don't get me wrong, it can help, but we have many cases where it made little to no difference because teachers and iPads can't do it all. Anyways, that's a lot of rambling. My point is that I don't think the sentiment of "these people are oppressed" (which is what I assume most mean when they say it's "society's fault") is correct. It's far more complicated than that.
  - stuckinarut 8y ago
    Society is entirely responsible for that.

erikpukinskis 8y ago

What do you mean “no resources”? These families have many resources... do you mean “no money”?

nkrisc 8y ago

Who's responsibility? Not the child's. This school is about helping the children who weren't given a say in the matter of their upbringing and existence.

ryandrake 8y ago
Why not both? Treat the symptom, getting help for these at-risk kids and work on the cause: figure out how to not get into this situation with all these at-risk kids to begin with. For some reason you can only talk about seatbelts—mentioning safe driving will get you downvotes.
- nkrisc 8y ago
  Helping at-risk kids succeed is helping treat the cause. If you don't help these kids, they're going to grow up and have their own "at-risk" kids. And the cycle continues. These are efforts to break the cycle. This is proactive investment in the future.

pjc50 8y ago

Not in an environment where people are still trying to promote abstinence-only sex ed, no.

EpicEng 8y ago

You're getting downvoted, and maybe most of that is a sentiment of "we have to deal with the problem at hand", which is absolutely the only thing an outsider can do, but you're not wrong. My wife works in a low income school, largest and poorest in the area (a relatively large city.) Pumping more money in does not help. More after school problems does not help much. As far as academic achievement is concerned, these kids are completely stuck because they have what we would consider terrible situations at home. Sometimes the parents just don't care, sometimes they just don't have the time (multiple jobs). More often than not there is only one parent at home. There's only so much a teacher/school can do if the parent is picking up the ball when the kid gets home.

yardie 8y ago
I come from one of those large, poor inner city schools. The money and after school programs absolutely help. I am a product of those after school programs. That additional money paid for musical instruments, sports, computers, and transportation. I feel personally insulted when people say we shouldn't fund these afterschool programs because they don't feel they are working.
- travmatt 8y ago
  Oddly enough, it’s usually the people not actually involved who are the experts on why we need to take more away from them.
- textor 8y ago
  Anecdotal experiences are near worthless when discussing policies, though. Feel insulted all you like; statistically speaking, these resources are wasted. Chances are you'd be equally well off without them.
  - cardine 8y ago
    Anecdotal experiences are near worthless, but sweeping statements with no cited sources are equally as bad.

s73v3r_ 8y ago

"At some point, though, personal responsibility has to come into play." Only if you're looking to blame something so you can feel smugly superior to them. If you're looking to actually provide services or improve conditions, that's not something worth talking about, because it doesn't change conditions now. EDIT: And especially not when we're talking about Ohio, which is one of the states looking to outright ban abortion.

JamesBarney 8y ago

Are you arguing for better access to birth control? Or that the children should be punished for the sins of their mother?

darepublic 8y ago
Well like it or not, children do pay for the sins of their parents. It's not something to be argued for its simply the truth
- jschwartzi 8y ago
  We're not arguing that it doesn't happen, we're arguing that it shouldn't.
- salvar 8y ago
  So should we try to do more or less of it?
- walshemj 8y ago
  As Max Mosley may have said "you can chose your friends you cannot chose your parents - He is the son of Oswald mosley btw.
vxNsr 8y ago
Someone might argue that people shouldn't engage in activities that have a strong probability of creating responsibilities they can't handle, no matter how good those initial activities feel. In other parts of society we'd say "Don't do the crime if you can't do the time." I know this is a very unpopular opinion the world over right now, but: This applies loosely to sex as well (Don't have sex if you can't afford to have kids).
- jschwartzi 8y ago
  No, it sounds like you're arguing that the child should bear the burden of the parent's bad decisions. Ever hear the phrase "sins of the father?" The fact is the child has no control over their home environment, and you're effectively damning them to a life of lower achievement based on the fact that their parents can't afford enough bedding. Is that really the kind of world you want to live in?

verall 8y ago

I don't see how this is an elephant in the room or a conversation we can't have right now. Lets. What, besides providing extra resources to underpriveleged children so they are not punished for their parents mistakes, can be done? Are you suggesting we make their parents "pay" somehow? Or a program to prevent the parents from having 5+ kids when they don't have the resources?

stuckinarut 8y ago
better sex education, better access to contraceptives, better access to abortion. You don't punish the problem away, you help people avoid it themselves.
- verall 8y ago
  I think this is a huge part of it. Even something as simple as free high-quality condoms or emergency contraception (morning-after) can make a huge difference when money is tight. Even better would be free birth-control medication or IUD's, as these put the birth control in the hands of women, while condoms especially might not be used in the face of social pressure.
- naravara 8y ago
  I like the assumption that the 5+ kids are all just due to irresponsible people popping children out and not, say, the results of generous people fostering family members who would be in even worse situations otherwise or a mother who is being raped by a partner.
  - stuckinarut 8y ago
    I did make that assumption because it doesn't fucking matter why, those are all still things that should be done. Domestic violence is bad, fortunately we can focus on more than one damn thing.
  - dang 8y ago
    This comment breaks the site guidelines, which ask: Please respond to the strongest plausible interpretation of what someone says, not a weaker one that's easier to criticize. Please review https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and follow the rules when posting here.

staunch 8y ago

> At some point, though, personal responsibility has to come into play. It actually doesn't. Everyone is a responsible as they're capable of being, given their genetics and their environment. If you're a very responsible person it's because you were fortunate to have your particular genetics and/or environment. Some people are born into terrible environments but have the genetic luck to be highly responsible. Some people are born into great environments but have the genetic misfortune to be highly irresponsible. No one chooses to be responsible or irresponsible. The onus is on the genetically/environmentally lucky people to help the unlucky ones. There's absolutely no shame in being unlucky and no pride in being lucky. There isn't much the lucky people can do to improve genetics (yet) but there's a lot that can be done to improve environments.

btkramer9 8y ago
> No one chooses to be responsible or irresponsible. Really? Everyone's level of responsibility is purely based on a genetic lottery and have nothing to do with one's own willpower? edit: I can understand environment having an effect
- staunch 8y ago
  Not just genetics. Your willpower is entirely dependent on your genetics and your environment. There are no other factors possible. No one chooses how much willpower they have, just like no one chooses how intelligent they are.
  - nugget 8y ago
    By your argument if somebody is lucky, successful, and prideful, but feels no desire to help others, wouldn't that apathy also be a result of genetics and environment? And thus you couldn't blame them for it or expect them to act any differently.
    - staunch 8y ago
      Exactly. You can certainly pity someone for lacking empathy but blaming them makes no sense. And behavior isn't necessarily a static thing. This same person might read a good book (which would become part environment) which might move them to be more empathetic.

jdavis703 8y ago

Along with "out-of-wedlock" births people also get divorced and/or die. I know two families where death is what caused a parent to become single. Life changes quickly (I grew up with a single mom, she got divorced because my dad developed a severe mental illness). Judging families by personal responsibility should really only be done on a case-by-case basis.

clairity 8y ago

how do you see people not taking personal responsibility in this regard? at an individual, or a population level? you seem to assume a lot about people "having 5+ children when you have no resources". even the idea of "no resources" has a number of in-built assumptions. what are they? do you work with populations of people like this? do you personally know people in this situation? are they truly hopeless? certainly we can have an adult conversation, but don't beat around the bush. start the conversation with an earnest and reasoned argument, rather than an inscrutable lament.

ygkevin 8y ago

It's not all about personal responsibility. Something to also consider is that the psychology of poverty also drives bad decisions [1]. Turns out the financial pressures that drive people to make bad decisions are also some of the pressures the I promise school is trying to alleviate. [1]: http://review.chicagobooth.edu/behavioral-science/2018/article/how-poverty-changes-your-mind-set http://review.chicagobooth.edu/behavioral-science/2018/artic...

dragonwriter 8y ago

> Having 5+ children when you have no resources... Isn't that surprising; globally, number of children goes down with both prosperity and, even controlling for prosperity, strength of social safety nets (a common explanation for the latter being that with no or weak public safety net, your children are your old-age social safety net.) The US has been proudly dismantling it's social safety net since the 1990s, and it already was notoriously weak for the developed world. Simultaneously, access to birth control and abortion is also under perennial assault, and even where access is maintained, well-funded shame campaigns are directed against both. Strangely, the people backing all of those efforts are also the ones that complain the most about poor people having too many kids. And do so under the banner of “personal responsibility”, without any hint of intentional irony.

salvar 8y ago

Of course personal responsibility comes into play. But what do you want to do about it? The child already exists and we can't go back in time, so no preventing that. Do we give the child the best opportunity it can get, or somehow use it to punish the parents for their decision making?

forapurpose 8y ago

> Having 5+ children when you have no resources... this is the true elephant in the room. What makes you say that's an actual problem that has a significant impact on American education?

kmkemp 8y ago

Of course, the parent could have also been very responsible. Maybe they were married with a nice income. Fast forward 10 years and their spouse has died or went to prison and they lost their nice job and now have to work multiple lower paying jobs. There are a multitude of circumstances that could put you in a position that you didn't foresee.