3 ms·

It’s not the school’s job job to teach anything beyond the academic material. It’s not a daycare and it is definitely not a parent surrogate. When it comes to b

It’s not the school’s job job to teach anything beyond the academic material. It’s not a daycare and it is definitely not a parent surrogate. When it comes to building character, teaching resilience, that falls on the parents, extended family and community. Stop blaming the teachers and start parenting your damn kids. Single parent families broken homes are the leading causes of poor outcomes for children in education and lifelong success. If the parents in America got their shit together, children would do a lot better in life.

epicureanideal 5y ago
> Single parent families broken homes are the leading causes of poor outcomes for children in education and lifelong success. It’s hard to blame specific parents when the laws and the participants in family courts (including but not limited to the parents) encourage broken families. > If the parents in America got their shit together, children would do a lot better in life. First we need to fix the laws to encourage families to be stable rather than require families to constantly struggle in opposition to the incentives created by the law.
- malux85 5y ago
  Can you elaborate on how laws encourage broken families in the US (or anywhere) (Not disagreeing I’ve just never heard this perspective before and I’m curious)
  - coryrc 5y ago
    Almost no welfare for married couples, homeless shelters only accept women and children.
  - epicureanideal 5y ago
    I'll mention a little bit, although I could list more... For general context, I think it's the case that most relationships will have some disagreements and dissatisfactions from time to time, that are usually temporary and could be resolved in most cases assuming both partners are psychologically healthy and have reasonable conflict resolution skills. I also think that both partners will from time to time notice what appears to be a more desirable partner than their current partner, sometimes that's an accurate impression and sometimes it is only a temporary impression. In the past, social and legal incentives discouraged married people from breaking up their families at low points in their marriage, and ideally they'd stay together long enough to find out how to work out their problems. That's not to say that anyone should be stuck in a marriage. Divorce should obviously be possible for lots of reasons, and possibly for no reason, but it shouldn't be *incentivized* in my opinion. If a couple merely wants an unstable, temporary relationship, that's perfectly fine. No one is demanding that they give up that lifestyle if they prefer it, but for those who prefer the idea of marriage as a way of encouraging each other to commit to the relationship in the long term, current laws have removed absolutely every disincentive to break up the family and actually made married relationships more unstable than unmarried ones by creating financial and other incentives for breaking up the married relationship. 1) Spousal support awards to a lesser earning partner encourage that partner to break up the family rather than put effort into resolving disagreements or dissatisfactions in the relationship. 2) No-fault divorce means that anyone can end a marriage at any time for any reason, which no longer seems like what "marriage" was in the past or the vows that are made. If it's just a temporary relationship that can be ended at any time, why call it "marriage" rather than "girlfriend/boyfriend/etc."? Importantly, if there is no fault, but both parties walk away with 50% of the assets (and in practice much more usually goes to one of the sides) then the lesser earning partner in particular, and/or the partner that started with less assets, is at least "not disincentivized" from breaking up the family. 3) Child support awards in excess of the amount needed to raise children encourages the lesser earning parent to break up the family rather than resolve disagreements cooperatively. Note that I wouldn't want to encourage anyone to stay in a truly bad relationship, but specifically the award amounts should not be in excess of the needed amount. To the extent they're in excess, it's effectively a financial reward for breaking up the family. 4) Child custody awards are something like 80-85% of the time to the mother, so if a mother disagrees with the father on how to raise the kids or is having some other reasonable disagreement with him, she can break up the family and know that it's highly likely she'll get the vast majority of time with the kids, and in almost no cases would she get less than 50/50. So rather than both partners needing to learn to cooperate, one has a nuclear option they can use at any time, which imbalances any negotiation around personal boundaries or child raising. If the government wanted to encourage stable families they would do things like: a) Let divorce remain an option, but the party breaking up the family should be disincentivized rather than incentivized. b) Make pre-nuptial agreements ta default that people need to opt out of, so everyone negotiates the terms on the way in instead of expensively on the way out. c) Promote education about healthy conflict resolution strategies for all couples considering marriage, and possibly in all levels of education throughout life, as it would be beneficial to society as a whole.
  - barry-cotter 5y ago
    The existence of alimony or of uncapped child support is a financial inducement to divorce. Differences in existence, generosity and time limits have exactly the effects you would expect.
dleslie 5y ago
Schools have children for roughly 5/7 of the daylight hours in a week, while the parents are working. They _are_ day cares, and they are responsible for helping children become adults, beyond simply training them in the basic Rs.
- barry-cotter 5y ago
  Indeed, and this is why they’ve recently become major political battlegrounds. The combination of general awareness that schools are sites of indoctrination/character formation and that different political groups which really hate each other have different views on how to indoctrinate is guaranteed to lead to conflict.
Jaygles 5y ago
> and community Do you think the schools and the teachers aren't a part of the community?
- robertlagrant 5y ago
  This is like saying "don't you think the police are part of the community?" They are, but not in the sense of the community that should be the way kids learn how to be adults.
- barry-cotter 5y ago
  “Can be” and “are” are separate concepts. I know several of the teachers at my secondary school were grateful to live well outside the catchment area for students of the school. Being able to go out for drinks or dinner and rarely if ever see students is bliss. The school I teach at certainly is not meaningfully part of any neighborhood community. Even the idea that teachers, administration and students are part of the same community is pushing the concept, unless prison guards and wardens are part of the same community as the prisoners.
coryrc 5y ago
In France the creché (roughly preschool) has a respected position in educating and shaping children, poor and rich alike.
- ragona 5y ago
  Have you tried instead paying untrained students minimum wage?
unclebucknasty 5y ago
Do we want a society wherein only perfect inputs lead to good outcomes? Should we only seek to thrive as a whole if every member of society can individually adhere to the ideal of an utopian citizen? Or, do we want some acknowledgment of the imperfection of humans and aim to structure a thriving society in any case, with some sense of community and public good? If so, and we acknowledge school as one public good, then why would we arbitrarily draw the line at "academic material"? Couldn't we just as arbitrarily say that parents should strictly teach academic material, while schools teach other values? I mean, you're here advocating for values that you believe would benefit everyone. Yet, you would want no public or community effort to encourage those values? Seems incongruent.
- robertlagrant 5y ago
  > Couldn't we just as arbitrarily say that parents should strictly teach academic material, while schools teach other values? No. Parents are responsible for basically everything, and schools exist as a place parents can choose to send their children to be educated. Schools and parents are not equal, with a coin flip to decide who does what.
  - unclebucknasty 5y ago
    >a place parents can choose to send their children In the U.S., school attendance is paid for by the public and generally required by law. This isn't to say there aren't exemptions for alternatives such as homeschooling. But, this reflects that we have decided education, in general, is an important public good. So, teaching other valuable skills (like resiliency) is consistent with this principle. There doesn't seem to be much value in arbitrarily circumscribing which skills should be taught. And, schools teaching a broader array of skills doesn't reassign ultimate responsibility from parents any more than sending them to school does now.
    - barry-cotter 5y ago
      > There doesn't seem to be much value in arbitrarily circumscribing which skills should be taught. If there’s intense disagreement over the skills and values that should be taught declaring the areas of disagreement to be matters for parents and guardians seems wise. Avoiding exacerbating conflict generally seems wise.
moonchrome 5y ago
That was actually something I struggled with growing up. In school I was supposed to take advice from people whose role in life was teaching material they couldn't really justify, to a bunch of uninterested kids, to pass pointless exams. Nobody actually learned the material (I regularly got poor grades but retained more knowledge than my peers since I was too lazy to study for exams or cheat on them, but I did pay attention in class enough to get by) and passing the exam was the definition of "success". These people were supposed to be my role models and authority figures ? And being from poor background you only get to meet unsuccessful people - so at best you get examples of what you shouldn't do if you want to succeed in life.

epicureanideal 5y ago

> Single parent families broken homes are the leading causes of poor outcomes for children in education and lifelong success. It’s hard to blame specific parents when the laws and the participants in family courts (including but not limited to the parents) encourage broken families. > If the parents in America got their shit together, children would do a lot better in life. First we need to fix the laws to encourage families to be stable rather than require families to constantly struggle in opposition to the incentives created by the law.

malux85 5y ago
Can you elaborate on how laws encourage broken families in the US (or anywhere) (Not disagreeing I’ve just never heard this perspective before and I’m curious)
- coryrc 5y ago
  Almost no welfare for married couples, homeless shelters only accept women and children.
- epicureanideal 5y ago
  I'll mention a little bit, although I could list more... For general context, I think it's the case that most relationships will have some disagreements and dissatisfactions from time to time, that are usually temporary and could be resolved in most cases assuming both partners are psychologically healthy and have reasonable conflict resolution skills. I also think that both partners will from time to time notice what appears to be a more desirable partner than their current partner, sometimes that's an accurate impression and sometimes it is only a temporary impression. In the past, social and legal incentives discouraged married people from breaking up their families at low points in their marriage, and ideally they'd stay together long enough to find out how to work out their problems. That's not to say that anyone should be stuck in a marriage. Divorce should obviously be possible for lots of reasons, and possibly for no reason, but it shouldn't be *incentivized* in my opinion. If a couple merely wants an unstable, temporary relationship, that's perfectly fine. No one is demanding that they give up that lifestyle if they prefer it, but for those who prefer the idea of marriage as a way of encouraging each other to commit to the relationship in the long term, current laws have removed absolutely every disincentive to break up the family and actually made married relationships more unstable than unmarried ones by creating financial and other incentives for breaking up the married relationship. 1) Spousal support awards to a lesser earning partner encourage that partner to break up the family rather than put effort into resolving disagreements or dissatisfactions in the relationship. 2) No-fault divorce means that anyone can end a marriage at any time for any reason, which no longer seems like what "marriage" was in the past or the vows that are made. If it's just a temporary relationship that can be ended at any time, why call it "marriage" rather than "girlfriend/boyfriend/etc."? Importantly, if there is no fault, but both parties walk away with 50% of the assets (and in practice much more usually goes to one of the sides) then the lesser earning partner in particular, and/or the partner that started with less assets, is at least "not disincentivized" from breaking up the family. 3) Child support awards in excess of the amount needed to raise children encourages the lesser earning parent to break up the family rather than resolve disagreements cooperatively. Note that I wouldn't want to encourage anyone to stay in a truly bad relationship, but specifically the award amounts should not be in excess of the needed amount. To the extent they're in excess, it's effectively a financial reward for breaking up the family. 4) Child custody awards are something like 80-85% of the time to the mother, so if a mother disagrees with the father on how to raise the kids or is having some other reasonable disagreement with him, she can break up the family and know that it's highly likely she'll get the vast majority of time with the kids, and in almost no cases would she get less than 50/50. So rather than both partners needing to learn to cooperate, one has a nuclear option they can use at any time, which imbalances any negotiation around personal boundaries or child raising. If the government wanted to encourage stable families they would do things like: a) Let divorce remain an option, but the party breaking up the family should be disincentivized rather than incentivized. b) Make pre-nuptial agreements ta default that people need to opt out of, so everyone negotiates the terms on the way in instead of expensively on the way out. c) Promote education about healthy conflict resolution strategies for all couples considering marriage, and possibly in all levels of education throughout life, as it would be beneficial to society as a whole.
- barry-cotter 5y ago
  The existence of alimony or of uncapped child support is a financial inducement to divorce. Differences in existence, generosity and time limits have exactly the effects you would expect.

dleslie 5y ago

Schools have children for roughly 5/7 of the daylight hours in a week, while the parents are working. They _are_ day cares, and they are responsible for helping children become adults, beyond simply training them in the basic Rs.

barry-cotter 5y ago
Indeed, and this is why they’ve recently become major political battlegrounds. The combination of general awareness that schools are sites of indoctrination/character formation and that different political groups which really hate each other have different views on how to indoctrinate is guaranteed to lead to conflict.

Jaygles 5y ago

> and community Do you think the schools and the teachers aren't a part of the community?

robertlagrant 5y ago
This is like saying "don't you think the police are part of the community?" They are, but not in the sense of the community that should be the way kids learn how to be adults.
barry-cotter 5y ago
“Can be” and “are” are separate concepts. I know several of the teachers at my secondary school were grateful to live well outside the catchment area for students of the school. Being able to go out for drinks or dinner and rarely if ever see students is bliss. The school I teach at certainly is not meaningfully part of any neighborhood community. Even the idea that teachers, administration and students are part of the same community is pushing the concept, unless prison guards and wardens are part of the same community as the prisoners.

coryrc 5y ago

In France the creché (roughly preschool) has a respected position in educating and shaping children, poor and rich alike.

ragona 5y ago
Have you tried instead paying untrained students minimum wage?

unclebucknasty 5y ago

Do we want a society wherein only perfect inputs lead to good outcomes? Should we only seek to thrive as a whole if every member of society can individually adhere to the ideal of an utopian citizen? Or, do we want some acknowledgment of the imperfection of humans and aim to structure a thriving society in any case, with some sense of community and public good? If so, and we acknowledge school as one public good, then why would we arbitrarily draw the line at "academic material"? Couldn't we just as arbitrarily say that parents should strictly teach academic material, while schools teach other values? I mean, you're here advocating for values that you believe would benefit everyone. Yet, you would want no public or community effort to encourage those values? Seems incongruent.

robertlagrant 5y ago
> Couldn't we just as arbitrarily say that parents should strictly teach academic material, while schools teach other values? No. Parents are responsible for basically everything, and schools exist as a place parents can choose to send their children to be educated. Schools and parents are not equal, with a coin flip to decide who does what.
- unclebucknasty 5y ago
  >a place parents can choose to send their children In the U.S., school attendance is paid for by the public and generally required by law. This isn't to say there aren't exemptions for alternatives such as homeschooling. But, this reflects that we have decided education, in general, is an important public good. So, teaching other valuable skills (like resiliency) is consistent with this principle. There doesn't seem to be much value in arbitrarily circumscribing which skills should be taught. And, schools teaching a broader array of skills doesn't reassign ultimate responsibility from parents any more than sending them to school does now.
  - barry-cotter 5y ago
    > There doesn't seem to be much value in arbitrarily circumscribing which skills should be taught. If there’s intense disagreement over the skills and values that should be taught declaring the areas of disagreement to be matters for parents and guardians seems wise. Avoiding exacerbating conflict generally seems wise.

moonchrome 5y ago

That was actually something I struggled with growing up. In school I was supposed to take advice from people whose role in life was teaching material they couldn't really justify, to a bunch of uninterested kids, to pass pointless exams. Nobody actually learned the material (I regularly got poor grades but retained more knowledge than my peers since I was too lazy to study for exams or cheat on them, but I did pay attention in class enough to get by) and passing the exam was the definition of "success". These people were supposed to be my role models and authority figures ? And being from poor background you only get to meet unsuccessful people - so at best you get examples of what you shouldn't do if you want to succeed in life.