5 ms·

"If in fact our schooling policies are basically OK and the problem lies almost solely in the homes, then solutions involving throwing more money at school won'

"If in fact our schooling policies are basically OK and the problem lies almost solely in the homes, then solutions involving throwing more money at school won't work. This is a worthy investigation." Even if we accept your premise, I'm not sure we need to accept your conclusion. Just because the cause of the problem is a difference in home life, doesn't mean that the easiest solution to the problem is to "fix" the home life (i.e. end poverty). There are a number of schools (usually charters) who teach low-income students and structure themselves to compensate for any disadvantages students may have coming in (with strategies like longer school days/years). Some of these schools (KIPP, Uncommon Schools, Harlem Children's Zone) have had incredible success. It might seem strange to "overcompensate" for differences at home in schools - but it's a lot easier to change schools than it is to change people's home life.

tedunangst 16y ago
At least in the case of Harlem Children's Zone, it's a lot more than a school. So the conclusion that throwing money at schools won't work is correct. We should instead throw "school" money at things like HCZ. I think you're actually in agreement with jerf, but are using different definitions of "school".
nitrogen 16y ago
Unless by "poverty" you mean the sum culture, attitude, and circumstances that lead to continued poverty, I don't think "poverty" (i.e. a simple lack of money) is the cause of the home life problem. I think that cultural (not to be misread as racial!) attitudes and parenting strategies (or lack thereof) are far more problematic than the actual economics.
pbhjpbhj 16y ago
>Just because the cause of the problem is a difference in home life, doesn't mean that the easiest solution to the problem is to "fix" the home life (i.e. end poverty). Just adding my voice to the sibling posts - by our governments figures we're below the poverty line, we were substantially below it but we're clawing our way up slowly. We do literacy and numeracy educational activities, general knowledge, problem solving, etc. with our kids at home. The eldest is now at school so his rate of learning has fallen back a bit but I think we're probably doing as much as anyone above the poverty line. Where we falter is affording things like sports equipment, foreign trips, arts (theatre) and music events. IMO the whole schooling system probably needs working over; the assumption appears to be that school+parents are failing if kids aren't academic. Not everyone is, nor should be, particularly academic. We don't seem to decry standards in education when people leave school and can't do basic vehicle maintenance or simple DIY tasks. Education is not solely intellectual pursuit. How do you propose to "overcompensate" at school for a lack of motivation brought about by low parental engagement. Unless you're getting the parents into school to have co-learning experiences or something I don't really buy the idea that tightening your belt will stop your shoes falling off.

tedunangst 16y ago

At least in the case of Harlem Children's Zone, it's a lot more than a school. So the conclusion that throwing money at schools won't work is correct. We should instead throw "school" money at things like HCZ. I think you're actually in agreement with jerf, but are using different definitions of "school".

nitrogen 16y ago

Unless by "poverty" you mean the sum culture, attitude, and circumstances that lead to continued poverty, I don't think "poverty" (i.e. a simple lack of money) is the cause of the home life problem. I think that cultural (not to be misread as racial!) attitudes and parenting strategies (or lack thereof) are far more problematic than the actual economics.

pbhjpbhj 16y ago

>Just because the cause of the problem is a difference in home life, doesn't mean that the easiest solution to the problem is to "fix" the home life (i.e. end poverty). Just adding my voice to the sibling posts - by our governments figures we're below the poverty line, we were substantially below it but we're clawing our way up slowly. We do literacy and numeracy educational activities, general knowledge, problem solving, etc. with our kids at home. The eldest is now at school so his rate of learning has fallen back a bit but I think we're probably doing as much as anyone above the poverty line. Where we falter is affording things like sports equipment, foreign trips, arts (theatre) and music events. IMO the whole schooling system probably needs working over; the assumption appears to be that school+parents are failing if kids aren't academic. Not everyone is, nor should be, particularly academic. We don't seem to decry standards in education when people leave school and can't do basic vehicle maintenance or simple DIY tasks. Education is not solely intellectual pursuit. How do you propose to "overcompensate" at school for a lack of motivation brought about by low parental engagement. Unless you're getting the parents into school to have co-learning experiences or something I don't really buy the idea that tightening your belt will stop your shoes falling off.