Another school program I don't know how I feel about.

[Footnotegirl]

ckay87, I'm with you. A child born to supportive, capable, involved parents is lucky. Kids do not ask to be born to bad parents. A child born without disabilities or mental issues is lucky. Even good parents need help dealing ith children who have brain chemical imbalances or other developmental disabilities, and some of those kids do not have good parents too.

Also on the "well the mission says X, and X applies to everyone, so everyons should be able to be in the program" here's the thing. a) they can't afford to have everyone in the program, and b) kids with good parents already get these things and thus have less need for this program. So it makes good sense that if they can only help N number of kids, they have to make the entry requirements be for the kids who need it most and are least likely to have these opportunities elsewhere.

Frankly, a lot of peoples privilege is showing here. I know that the board game thing probably doesn't need more harping. But it's not just about how good these games can be for math and spatial reasoning. Think about where you learned concepts of fair play, taking turns, competition, being a good winner and not a bad loser.. you probably don't remember, but more than likely, if you had good parents, it was through playing games with your family. If you have a love of reading, it probably came through your parents reading to you and seeing them read for pleasure. If you feel safe talking to someone about your problems and asking for help, it is because you had parents who were there to help and support you. If you have a trust of people in authority, it probably came from good experiences with them when you were very young. Many, many kids do not have these experiences growing up. If you grow up without anyone showing you these tools for success, you do not have these tools.

And the food stamp analogy still stands, because the inequality isn't in what these kids are getting at school, the inequality is in what these kids are getting at home.

 

[luvmy3]

I highly doubt that the school is paying for this program with their own funds. That means that some other private or public organization is paying for it. And they have the right to decide whom they want to benefit.

What does that have to do with the food stamp analogy?

 

[sbell111]

Dh is a high school teacher, and his school is constantly having programs like this. They cost a great deal of money and other resources and produce marginal results.

Sometimes, this is what matters.

For countless reasons, we can't help everyone. Certainly, we can't include every child in a programs like this because it would be unaffordable. It's also unrealistic to believe that every child in this program will be magically 'fixed'. However, some will. The lives of these kids who are 'on the margin' will be made better. As a result, society as a whole is improved. The decision then becomes whether it is cost effective to help these few children. In this case, someone decided that it was.

I can certainly understand the desire to help kids who need help. I understand the desire to cut the drop-out rate. I can understand early and continued academic intervention. I can understand tutoring. I can understand summer school (which I think has great merit).

At some point in the equation, the kids need to want to learn something and they need to make a modicum of effort to do it. Otherwise, at the end of the day, these programs are both a distraction and a gigantic waste of resources. These programs tend not to change the fundamental problem at all.

I believe that programs like this one improve the child in many ways including his/her ability to have relationships and boosting his/her sense of self, in addition to the academic support that can be given. All of these things tend to make the child more likely to succeed within the school environment. These programs, therefore, can change the 'fundemental problems' because they actually address some of those problems (and help the children develop solutions to others).

If you take nothing else away from this post, take this:

The problems of the world are solved on the margins.

 

[luvmy3]

ckay87, I'm with you. A child born to supportive, capable, involved parents is lucky. Kids do not ask to be born to bad parents. A child born without disabilities or mental issues is lucky. Even good parents need help dealing ith children who have brain chemical imbalances or other developmental disabilities, and some of those kids do not have good parents too.

Also on the "well the mission says X, and X applies to everyone, so everyons should be able to be in the program" here's the thing. a) they can't afford to have everyone in the program, and b) kids with good parents already get these things and thus have less need for this program. So it makes good sense that if they can only help N number of kids, they have to make the entry requirements be for the kids who need it most and are least likely to have these opportunities elsewhere.

And the food stamp analogy still stands, because the inequality isn't in what these kids are getting at school, the inequality is in what these kids are getting at home.

First of all nobody said that each every child should be doing this program. All students should qualify, yet still keeping the 300 limit. No need for extra funds beyond what is already set aside.
As far as the food stamp analogy, its just wrong. The job of school is to offer an education to all students, not a better one for only some. Qualifying for food stamps is based on your economic status, if all employers paid the same salary to everyone, everyone would qualify, or nobody would.
Schools offer the SAME education to everybody, therefore everyone should qualify or nobody should.

 

[Sleepy]

As the mother of a child who was always in remedial classes with D/F averages, I understand why they stay there. I understand why they never strive to do better. It is because the majority of society views them as slackers who will never deserve better.

There is nothing worse than overhearing one teacher say "I am sooooooo glad I got the smart kids this year" and then hearing the other teacher say "You are lucky!" Nothing worse than having your kid come home from school telling you that his 5th grade teacher told the class she liked "Mary", because "Mary" makes good grades. Then, when the high school principal tells a parent concerned about the amount of (lack of) offered remedial classes and the principal replies that it is impossible since we have to offer the smarter kids college credit classes and that takes away from the lower levels. Yes, her exact words. So, I asked her if she was graduating high school students or college kids. No reply. I gave up on the school system and started homeschooling. BTW, he is no longer remedial and makes As and Bs. Bs don't bother me. I think he is doing a fantastic job and he truly is doing his best. I don't expect more because he is already giving more.

Three years later, my friend informed me of a new program at the school. What kind of program you ask? Let's see. It is designed to help students become more organized and have better studying skills. What is wrong with this you ask? It is ONLY targeted toward kids who are B students. That's right. It is a program to give advanced level B students the boost they need to become straight A students. So, as an example, here we have a child who is already one grade advanced, taking honors courses and was getting high school credits long before he ever made it to high school. Nobody wants to ask if the child is making Bs because he has bitten off more than he can chew. Nobody wants to ask if the kid can't stay organized because too much work is created. Nobody wants to assume the child comes from a family that applies too much pressure and maybe the kid is a lost cause because he will never be an A student.

That program just makes me feel I was right in thinking remedial kids mean nothing to those people. Very sad. I'm glad I was able to be in a situation where I did not have to work any longer and could devote the time to teaching my kid in a way that works for him. Before that time, I could have never done it and he would have just stayed lost in the cracks the way the school system intended. (I am only speaking from personal experience of 2 districts among many in the United States).

 

[Boxley]

Well, you know, those 'losers" shouldn't have chosen to be born of dysfunctional or poverty stricken families!

Can you explain?

 

[DizBelle]

I do. When souls are being assigned to bodies, a child is pretty "lucky" to land his little self in a family who cares enough, or is able to, raise him properly. That's all about luck, what else would it be?

Then whoever is in charge of soul assignment is one sadistic SOB if they hand a child over to unloving, uncaring, abusive people to parent them.

Why would anyone choose to do that to a child if they could choose to do something else?

It's called choice. If you are not willing to take on the responsibility of being a parent, don't have children. Period.

 

[Pigeon]

Sometimes, this is what matters.

For countless reasons, we can't help everyone. Certainly, we can't include every child in a programs like this because it would be unaffordable. It's also unrealistic to believe that every child in this program will be magically 'fixed'. However, some will. The lives of these kids who are 'on the margin' will be made better. As a result, society as a whole is improved. The decision then becomes whether it is cost effective to help these few children. In this case, someone decided that it was.





I believe that programs like this one improve the child in many ways including his/her ability to have relationships and boosting his/her sense of self, in addition to the academic support that can be given. All of these things tend to make the child more likely to succeed within the school environment. These programs, therefore, can change the 'fundemental problems' because they actually address some of those problems (and help the children develop solutions to others).

If you take nothing else away from this post, take this:

The problems of the world are solved on the margins.

I largely disagree and see the problem defined quite differently. The problem is not that the kids are unable to have relationships or have poor self-esteem or "sense of self." The problem is that the kids are unable to complete the basic academic work required to get a high school diploma.

Many lack basic study skills. More importantly, many simply do not value academic achievement at all and are unwilling to exert any effort whatsoever to learn much of anything subject-related in school. In some cases that clearly comes from their homelife. That's sad and difficult, but I don't see anything in the program description that's going to change it.

Some of the kids may or may not have a problem with relationships. Some may have too little self-esteem, while some most definitely have too much. Genuine self-esteem comes from one's own struggle and accomplishment, and is not handed out by a well-meaning counsellor. While some of these issues may be related to eduational attainment, they also may not be. There are plenty of academically successful children who struggle with relationships and have self-esteem issues.

As for "The problems of the world are solved on the margins," that's nice in the abstract, but spending a disproportionate amount of resources for marginal results is not an efficient approach for a public institution.

 

[Boxley]

Then whoever is in charge of soul assignment is one sadistic SOB if they hand a child over to unloving, uncaring, abusive people to parent them.

Why would anyone choose to do that to a child if they could choose to do something else?

It's called choice. If you are not willing to take on the responsibility of being a parent, don't have children. Period.

What about those who did not have the choice of parenthood yet found themselves in that position? This is not a metaphysical discussion about the soul but rather the life of a child.

 

[MrsPete]

Wow.... just WOW... (bolding above is mine)

Way to read half a post!

Apparently the OP has no idea what at risk student are up AGAINST.

Having been a teacher for 16 years, I do have an inkling of what some of our kids "are up against", but every now and then I hear stories that prove without a doubt that we don't all live in the same world. And yet, the school system cannot fix everything. Programs like these will help a few kids, but most will not come out with stories that can be made into Lifetime movies -- not when they continue to spend the majority of their hours at home in very inadequate circumstances. If good answers existed, lots of people would jump at the chance to help these kids -- and to help society by helping its weakest members at an early age -- but those good answers don't exist.

 

[DizBelle]

What about those who did not have the choice of parenthood yet found themselves in that position? This is not a metaphysical discussion about the soul but rather the life of a child.

EVERYONE that is a parent chose to do so.

The only people that maybe (just maybe) didn't have a "choice" are those that were raped and that resulted in a pregnancy. However, they do have the choice to terminate.

So, yes, everyone that is a parent chose to be one when they could have chosen otherwise.

 

[Footnotegirl]

It's called choice. If you are not willing to take on the responsibility of being a parent, don't have children. Period.

I agree that people who aren't willing or able to take on the responsibilities of being a parent shouldn't have them. However, they do. That is a simple fact. And the children born to those people do not have a choice in being born to those people. Those children should not have opportunity taken away from them.

Boxley: I believe Gammaresource was being sarcastic and pointing out the obvious.

As far as the food stamp analogy, its just wrong. The job of school is to offer an education to all students, not a better one for only some. Qualifying for food stamps is based on your economic status, if all employers paid the same salary to everyone, everyone would qualify, or nobody would.
Schools offer the SAME education to everybody, therefore everyone should qualify or nobody should.

The school is still offering the same education to everyone. Through what looks like extra funding or a grant, the school (or a group which simply shares some members) is also offering extra programming for those children who's parents cannot or will not provide for these needs at home. Qualifying for the program is based on the status as an at risk youth who is not succeeding. Since most at risk youth are not succeeding due to either developmental problems or, more likely, a lack of outside support, the program is attempting to add that outside support. So the analogy still stands -
Some people don't make enough to afford enough food -> they get extra help through food stamps.
Some children have unusual problems/don't have support from adults at home -> they get extra help through the after school program.

 

[ckay87]

Then whoever is in charge of soul assignment is one sadistic SOB if they hand a child over to unloving, uncaring, abusive people to parent them.

Why would anyone choose to do that to a child if they could choose to do something else?

It's called choice. If you are not willing to take on the responsibility of being a parent, don't have children. Period.

Ok, we are totally thinking differently here and I have a headache And I'm sorry I used the word "soul" because now it just sounds goofy. I was simply saying a KID is lucky if they have a great family. True that it is the choice of the parents to become parents. But the kid in question has no choice in who their parents are. It's so off topic now, so just carry on...

 

[Wishing on a star]

Way to read half a post!
.....
Having been a teacher for 16 years, I do have an inkling of what some of our kids "are up against", but every now and then I hear stories that prove without a doubt that we don't all live in the same world. And yet.......

Ohhhh, believe me Ms. Pete....
I am very literate, and I did read your entire post.

And, as you just mentioned your status as a teacher (which I am very well aware of already) ... knowing that the comments that I had bolded are coming from a veteran educator is both very sad, and very scary.

According you this post, as an educator, you are aware of what at-risk kids are up against.... and your take is to offer nothing????? To parent bash, and tell young children who are going under for the third time to 'try harder', and to make the assumption that there will be a negative outcome, and that their 'grades' will never improve.

It REALLY bothers me when I see anybody who's sole criteria for looking at children, human beings, is 'grades'. Like this solely determines our value and worth as a human being.