Here is today’s test:
- What does the phrase, “with liberty and justice for all,” mean to you?
- On a scale of 0 -100, to what degree does the US live up to the ideal of “liberty and justice for all”? Please explain.
- Which is more important, liberty or justice? Please explain.
I wonder if seniors in our local high schools ever consider such questions?
Thomas Friedman points to coming disaster he foresees for the U.S., and says that in order to avoid a bad future, we need better citizens. Better citizens. Friedman feels, for the sake of our future, we need increasing numbers of individuals who will become committed to better citizenship and who will demand better government.
To prepare better citizens — citizens equipped with an understanding of history, equipped with the capacity for independent thought — would seem to be a big goal for schools in a democracy. But in all the commotion about school reform such as “A Nation At Risk,” or “Goals 2000,” civic education has not been emphasized. Math and science education gets more emphasis than civic education.
This recent article from the NYT, “White House Pushes Science and Math Education” tells about the a new math / science campaign, “Educate to Innovate.” And this video shows Education Secretary Arne Duncan and Office of Science and Technology Policy Director John P. Holdren talking about the billions of additional dollars that will be spent on science and math education.
The push for math and science educational reform is based on the idea that, through improved science and math education, we can keep our economic advantage, we can preserve our “American way of life.”
When a system fails, the natural response is to find someone to blame. But our nation’s decline has in no way been caused by high school graduates not knowing how to apply the quadratic formula, nor graduates not understanding why the seasons change. Our country is declining because of system failure — and increasing math and science competence by citizens in the system is not the answer to the system failure. We have disassembled whole industries and shipped them overseas because special interests had much to gain — not because our high school graduates didn’t know the Pythagorean Theorem. We have system failure because special interests are in power and seek ever more power and reward. We have system failure because ours is a very weak democracy.
Friedman has it right, we need better citizens. If there were enough better citizens, our system of representative democracy could be made to work. If there were enough better citizens, antidemocratic special interests could be held in check.
The fact that our educational system fails to prepare individuals with the skills and capacity for effective citizenship is a much more serious shortcoming, in my view, than the fact that our educational system fails to prepare individuals with skills for global competition. As Eric points out, Ohio is now revising its social study requirements. I am going to research what all is involved.
We have disassembled whole industries and shipped them overseas because special interests had much to gain — not because our high school graduates didn’t know the Pythagorean Theorem. We have system failure because special interests are in power and seek ever more power and reward. We have system failure because ours is a very weak democracy.
Could you please elaborate how this ties together. Also, do you not see division of labor as an efficient means to produce goods?
Also, I am going to hire the math student over the civics student.
Also, I am going to hire the math student over the civics student.
Maybe the math student could understand enough civics to cast an informed ballot…
Hi Mike,
Great post and glad it landed “Dayton” on my web-reading radar. I’ve been working endlessly to help improve citizenship education across North America, and it’s pleasing to stumble upon a site with a mission such as yours. Please keep up the good work!
Regan.
Ever watched “Jay Walking”? You think that civics students are doing a good job of casting informed ballots or that trying to educate them has worked well?
Ever seen this video about what is being discussed by candidates? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hzMas1bVidw&feature=related
How about crazy racists who don’t know who Charlie Rose is?http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aIcV4N1qvss .
How about this one? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P36x8rTb3jI .
or this one? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8QhJJBfwJME&NR=1&feature=fvwp .
People aren’t voting for the platforms of candidates. Those people who do vote for the platform, by in large, do not understand the implications of what they are voting for or about.
I will quickly discuss one idea that has garnered a lot of attention lately and seems very complex based on all of the dicussion.
Health Care:
People don’t know enough to understand that health care isn’t free or that health care can’t be provided universally. Two caveats, 1) Health care is a service or a product that is produced by the labor and minds of humans and it has value. To demand that it be provided to someone for free (or below the market cost) means that it (the service itself), or its market value, is being appropriated from someone else. 2) It can’t be provided universally unless it is at the expense of some other product or service, that is no longer able to secure the resources that are being redirected into health care (again, making it not free).
This is not what freedom is about. Freedom isn’t about the right to vote for someone to steal from someone else and give to you. Again, I am a pretty simple guy, but this debate seems simple to me.
Happy Thanksgiving!
Finally someone addresses the real problems in our society. It is not that students are not taught well it is that what they are taught is not the most important lesson to learn. I rather employ an honest and disciplined person that needs to use a calculator than a mathematician that has no values and lacks self control. Parents are the first ones to fail education reform when they fail to teach these lessons at home. Before the TV was the babysitter now its the teacher.
Folks, this is not an either or issue. The report A Nation at Risk honestly discussed huge problems in our education system. We have improved but we still need to make better progress in educating our children on the basics. Just as we have dumbed down the basics, so have we dumbed down our civics classes or eliminated them altogether. I suspect many on this blog would strongly oppose a rigorous civics class that actually taught the Constitution and how it was meant to created a very limited federal governments, with states having most of the power. But hey, I’m all for such a class.
So please be specific on what you want to teach in this civic classes. Health care as a right just recently found in the constitution? The right to free health care? The right to tax some people 90% of their income? The duty of the government to provide haircuts?
I always get nervous when someone advocates change without specifying where they intend to go.
rigorous civics class that actually taught the Constitution …
Where will we find teachers and curriculum? How’s this for a start:
http://www.hillsdale.edu/KirbyCenter/resources/constitutionreader/default.asp
So please be specific on what you want to teach in this civic classes.
Thanks for encouraging the focus.
The duty of the government to provide haircuts?
Indeed. The haircuts are part of a package that includes healthcare, clothes, travel, meals, and weapons training–not necessarily in that order.
Just ran across this and thought it might help clear up some of what should be talked about in school. http://mises.org/media/4276?silverlight=0
I am going to become professorial as Eric often does. Why is it unlikely that you will hear a message that the government is (at least) essentially unnecessary in most of its current and historical interventions into the lives of its citizens in a school that is publicly funded?
Why is it unlikely that you will hear a message that the government is (at least) essentially unnecessary in most of its current and historical interventions into the lives of its citizens in a school that is publicly funded?
I’m not sure exactly what the question is, but were you thinking along these lines?
In fairness to the Ohio Department of Education, the previous superintendent helped the department lead reform in the state and limit damage from the feds.
Let me restate: Why would you not be taught that the government is bad at a government run school?
“government is bad at a government run school?”
Many of us did very well at public schools. If you live in a poverty ridden inner city that has been politically and socially abandoned by everyone else, and also damaged by destructive behaviors found more frequently in cultures of poverty, and the rest of your fellow citizens have not invested in making these schools powerful enough to overcome all of these disadvantages, you probably don’t do so well. Private charter schools are now getting to where they are the equivalent of public schools in reaching this population. But that’s all. Private and religious schools that are selective, take the best and avoid the most difficult, in ways that public schools generally can not do, do better.
Bock argues that public schools can and should do better, which is true. But “government is bad, private is good” is a gross oversimplification.
Why would you not be taught that the government is bad at a government run school?
Now there’s an implication worth exploring! Thanks!
In a public school funded by state and local taxes, and elected state board of education sets minimum standards that apply to all school receiving state taxes, and an elected local board of education hires a superintendent, a treasurer, sets policy and approves the local course of study.
Suppose a governor took over the role of the state board of education. Then we might well expect the state to demand affirmation of the governor’s wisdom as a condition of receiving state funds. The state might also discourage critique of the governor’s supporters–the teachers’ unions, for example. So our government school students graduate believing that government and unions have all the solutions for public education, and citizens need only elect the right people and meet the unions’ expectations for support. But how is the union’s or governor’s enlightened self-interest served by a citizens poorly educated at great expense? Are you suggesting a lack of commitment to constitutional principles on their part? Who would elect officials who can’t understand and can’t keep their oath of office?
“government is bad, private is good” is a gross oversimplification.
Jesse didn’t say that. We can expect a libertarian to extol the invisible hand of the marketplace and point out that a government school is even less likely to succeed than a government pencil factory. Not a bad point on his part.
Eric,
Well reasoned. The bigger issue is not that one governor is better or worse than another; it is instead that all of them grow the power and scope of government and romanticize it as an institution. All critcism of goverment is that which is formed as criticism of “the stupid, or evil, other party”. The institution and it’s right to perform intervention is not questioned. The reason that it is in the administrator or governor’s interest to only criticize policy but not scope is that it would only serve to limit the power and potential for more power for governmet at large.
I would not only imply that they lack commitment to the constitutional principles, I will state it emphatically. What percentage of graduating seniors can correctly identify our form of goverment? What percentage of them could discuss the true implications of the system of checks and balances? How does the court interpreting law and “legistating” front the bench abridge this system? How does the creation of regulatory agencies abdicate the responsibility of the legislature?
How could these basics be missed by all parties and “independant” administrators for such a long period of time?
Next answer: The people who would elect incompetent officials are people who don’t understand the form and function of our government. All the more reason to teach people poorly. It means you only have to pander to be elected. Promise that you are “prolife” or “antigun” or “anti-whatever” and you don’t have to worry about the constitution or it’s “archaic” rules. Just convince 51% of the people that you taught how to think since they were 5. Sounds like a good system to ensure that government expands to me.
The bigger issue is not that one governor is better or worse than another…
So what keeps patriotic Americans from electing candidates who support limited government? Or do you believe thee tea party efforts are doomed to fail?
All critcism of goverment …
What about the President who said “government is the problem?”
The people who would elect incompetent officials are people who don’t understand the form and function of our government. All the more reason to teach people poorly.
Then why don’t limited government and tea party folks make inadequate education an election issue? If you believe a party deliberately supports civic ignorance as an electoral strategy, then expose it as educational treason. If state civics standards aren’t adequate for informed citizenship, expose it. If educational treason is ongoing, expose it.
Surely value can be gained from compulsory public education. We just need to ensure Thomas Jefferson’s voice is heard: “If a nation expects to be ignorant and free, in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be.”
Oh, by the way…
August 27, 2008:
ACORN’s national voter registration director, Kimberly Olsen, said Cleveland voter registration efforts have been wildly successful.
November 30, 2009:
Ohio Secretary of State Jennifer Brunner has agreed to a legal settlement that will result in more low-income residents being registered to vote. … Amy Teitelman, director of OHIO ACORN, said … “This means in the state of Ohio many more Ohioans, especially low-income Ohioans, are going to have the opportunity to register to vote,” …
Eric,
Yes, the Tea Party events are doomed to failure. In a recent poll I heard that 77% of people favored increasing taxes on the “rich”. I can’t find the citation currently but, I can’t find any citations where it is less than 50% when asked this question. Until the people whose rights are being abridged realize that we don’t live in a democracy and that they have no responsibility to capitulate, then the system will persist. It is unfortunate but I believe that it will take force, much like the civil rights struggle, to demand and enact this protection of individual rights.
The President who said “government is the problem” went on to increase the size and scope of government by 2X. Inflation adjusted it is much better but still 35.8%. Means-tested entitlements, which do not include Social Security or Medicare, rose by over 102% between 1980 and 1993, and they have continued climbing ever since.
This is actually a shining example of my point. Reagan promised that he was anti-big government and got elected. It didn’t and doesn’t matter to most conservatives that he grew government more than did Carter. They are too uneducated to know that this is even true.
The problem with government is that it can only set standards but it can’t go out of business. If a private company fails for 20 years it will eventually go out of business (or at least they used to do so). If government fails for 20 years then they demand more money and blame the people who aren’t giving enough to make it work.
It isn’t that the people running the government or the school system is bad. It is that government structure doesn’t allow the feedback system that eliminates bad actors from the marketplace. There is no solution for this except freedom.
Educational treason doesn’t exist because education isn’t a right. Therefore you aren’t abridging the right of a person. Therefore you aren’t committing a crime. The crime is forcing education, not teaching stupidity.
You make a mistake when you quote Jefferson there. While Jefferson made a mistake when he believed in public education, he was against compulsory education.
“Is it a right or a duty in society to take care of their infant members in opposition to the will of the parent? How far does this right and duty extend? –to guard the life of the infant, his property, his instruction, his morals? The Roman father was supreme in all these: we draw a line, but where? –public sentiment does not seem to have traced it precisely… It is better to tolerate the rare instance of a parent refusing to let his child be educated, than to shock the common feelings and ideas by the forcible asportation and education of the infant against the will of the father… What is proposed… is to remove the objection of expense, by offering education gratis, and to strengthen parental excitement by the disfranchisement of his child while uneducated. Society has certainly a right to disavow him whom they offer, and are permitted to qualify for the duties of a citizen. If we do not force instruction, let us at least strengthen the motives to receive it when offered.” –Thomas Jefferson: Note to Elementary School Act, 1817. ME 17:423
BTW: It is always a pleasure. I really appreciate your willingness to engage in meaningful discussion and consideration for the opinion of others.
Treason: Whoever, owing allegiance to the United States, levies war against them or adheres to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort within the United States or elsewhere, is guilty of treason and shall suffer death, or …
Don’t our oath-sworn public officials owe Ohio schoolchildren (and taxpayers, and the nation) a “thorough and efficient system” of public schools, as stated in Ohio’s constitution? How is failure to ensure public school students graduate as competent citizens not educational treason?
How about economic treason? Check out the DefeatTheDebt youtube channel:
http://www.youtube.com/defeatthedebt
Eric,
“levies war against them (nope) or adheres to their enemies (nope, unless you consider other than strict constitutionalists enemies), giving them aid and comfort” (again you would have to define enemy incredibly broadly).
My point is that it isn’t possible for the government to produce “thorough and efficient systems”. When you compare “public” vs “private”, public is always less efficient. Only when the government makes rules that it doesn’t have to follow but forces its competition to follow can it even pretend to compete. Therefore, it isn’t treasonous for the people who are legitimately trying to teach kids to fail miserably. It is just sad.
With regard to economic treason, it seems that the word treason is being used quite liberally here. Is the debt out of control? Yes. Should the US stop it? Yes. Is it unheard of to have a debt to GDP ratio like ours? Nope… That is how they justify this insanity. The problem is that in a “democracy” they obligate us, as individuals, to repay a debt that we aren’t creating. We authorize it by not stating emphatically that they do not represent us and that they cannot obligate us. Want an amendment idea? Try Milton Friedman’s, that said that the true rate of taxation is government spending…not what you see taken out at the end of the year. His suggestion was that total federal government spending couldn’t be more than 20% of GDP. This would mean that government would have to shrink when the economy shrinks…exactly the opposite of the current administrations plan.
At the end of the day it isn’t the fault of some ethereal others that we are in this situation. It is our own fault. It is the fault of my grandpa and grandma. They thought that Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, unemployment, etc. was a good idea. They wanted protection from reality at the expense of their own freedom. If you find people treasonous who are wrong, then find my grandparents treasonous. My suggestion is that many people who read this site would be hung. I don’t think it is treason. I think they are wrong. The crime is that they use force to ensure that we are going to pay for their mistakes.
If an unfriendly foreign power had attempted to impose on America the mediocre educational performance that exists today, we might well have viewed it as an act of war. As it stands, we have allowed this to happen to ourselves. … We have, in effect, been committing an act of unthinking, unilateral educational disarmament.
Sounds like an idictment of educational educational treason–setting the stage for economic treason. We can’t hang the traitors, but citizens have an obligation to remove them from office.
Public Education’s Biggest Failure Is To Prepare Students For Effective Citizenship
Three weeks and 18 posts later, Mike’s point has not be seriously contested
Ohio is now revising its social study requirements.
And we need to be specific about deficiencies in the proposed new requirements. I’ve dealt with some anti-tax, intellectually dishonest and evasive libertarians in my school district. They don’t come forward with specifics to fix the system. Just as well–after all, they are intellectually dishonest. But a libertarian critique of the standards would be valuable nonetheless.
I know no safe depository of the ultimate powers of the society but the people themselves; and if we think them not enlightened enough to exercise their control with a wholesome discretion, the remedy is not to take it from them but to inform their discretion.
So regardless of the inferiority of public (or governemnt?) education compared to the invisible hand of the market, our nation relies on education to sustain itself.
So how do we inform the discretion of our future voters? A good starting place would be a bibliography, which can then be abstracted into content standards. What belongs in the bibliography? Personally, I’m for David McCollough and Tocqueville. What would libertarians argue for?
Bastiat, The Law
Wood’s videos at mises.org (Thanks!)
I, Pencil
Any more?
Is libertarianism a political disability? Are its victims forever destined to say “We the people can’t do that, we must rely upon the invisible hand of the market.”
We have compulsory public education. Knowing the potential for mischief, where is the demand that schoolsbe as good as possible for the sake of our nation?
Rothbard: Man, Economy and State
Rothbard: America’s Great Depression
Rothbard: Conceived in Liberty
Hazlitt: Economics in One Lesson
Mises: Anti-Capitalistic Mentality, The
Block: Defending the Undefendable
Libertarianism isn’t a political disability. The Libertarian isn’t any more a victim than is anyone else. The difference is that Libertarians understand the handcuffs are on and others don’t. We say when asked why we aren’t working faster, “Take the handcuffs off and we will work faster.” We the people can be either enhanced or restrained by the the systems in which we work. We (all of us) are restrained by this system.
I will tell you the problem with the current system with regard to the way it works in relation to capitalism: There is no large scale testing ground for other ways and other types of education. I would suggest that involving Lisa VanDamme of the VanDamme Institute in any discussion is a valuable start.
Okay, here is what I believe to be the capitalist answer if you force me to act within the current system:
Remove all national standards. Allow districts to teach whatever they want. Make it known what you will be teaching. Allow parents to make a decision as to where they send their kids within the district and if they want to stay in the district. This is the only want to ensure that we aren’t misdirecting education on a large scale.
If some people want incredible math education (as Robert seemed to above), then they can go to a school that does 4 hours of math a day and doesn’t mention civics once. If you want all civics and history and only a basic knowledge as to how to use a calculator, then you can go to that school. Let there be less standardization and more freedom and let the schools compete with one another.
“No forced standard” is the way to go with education. Let each person set their own standard and attend the school that best meets that standard.
I’m not clear how those references contribute to “focus,” “essential knowledge and skills,” or “other aspects” meriting attention.
Here’s what Ohio is looking for to improve the current social studies standards:
SOCIAL STUDIES ACADEMIC CONTENT STANDARDS REVISION
DISCUSSION GROUP TOPICS
Social Studies Academic Content Standards Revision, November 2009
1) Discuss the focus, clarity and manageability of the content statements.
2) Comment on the inclusion of essential knowledge and skills for the twenty-first century.
3) Comment on the connections between strands within each grade level or course.
4) Comment on the progression of topics from grade to grade.
5) Comment on the extent to which the content statements guide instruction for a greater depth of knowledge than the current grade-level indicators.
6) Discuss other aspects of the standards that might merit attention.
Your right. I can’t fix it. Lets just keep trying the same old things. We must have standards! Just keep asking other people…surely someone must know what we need to teach kids to make them successful 20 years from now. All we need to do is find that one person and force all kids to know whatever that person tells us they will need to know. :)
I can’t fix it. … We must have standards! Just keep asking other people … :)
Retired Supreme Court Justice O’Connor would like kids to know that the judicial branch is not a policy-making branch of government, and would like students to learn enough about economics, government, and politics to escape cycles of poverty.
Retired Supreme Court Justice Souter would like kids to know how local, state, and federal levels of government interface.
Retired Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare David Mathews would like kids to be able to weigh evidence to assess the merit of different approaches for solving problems that face their communities
Nobel laureate Feynman would like kids to be able to read–and schools to avoid cargo-cult mimicry of methods unlikely to work in the current environment.
Retired Ohio Supreme Court Justice Resnick would like schools to instill the principles of democracy and ethics.
Nobel laureate Milton Friedman writes, “Progress toward our objective of universal vouchers has been distressingly slow, but there has been progress. The pace of progress shows every sign of speeding up, and our foundation has made a significant contribution to that progress.”
So where are the libertarians who can outline a high school course of study which would qualify a non-public school to receive vouchers? Or do we just abandon Jefferson’s concern that voters be adequately educated?
If retired Supreme Court Justice O’Connor would like kids to know that the judicial branch is not a policy-making branch of government, and would like students to learn enough about economics, government, and politics to escape cycles of poverty, then she should set up a school that teaches it.
If retired Supreme Court Justice Souter would like kids to know how local, state, and federal levels of government interface, then he should organize a school that teaches it.
If retired Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare David Mathews would like kids to be able to weigh evidence to assess the merit of different approaches for solving problems that face their communities, then he should start a school that teaches it.
If Nobel laureate Feynman would like kids to be able to read–and schools to avoid cargo-cult mimicry of methods unlikely to work in the current environment, then he should teach his own kids and any who can afford his time. Oh! Wait, as I remember Feynman did teach his own kids. He also is known to have had much more success with Carl than with Michelle. This is a demonstration that even someone as brilliant as Feynman would be unable to configure a standard that forces every student into the same curriculum and be successful.
If Resnick wants to start a school that focuses on democracy and ethics, then he should organize one. If you want your kid to know that stuff according to Resnick then send your kid there.
The point is that there isn’t time to do what all of these people want. Therefore you can’t set a standard that meets all of these goals. You must either choose from among them…leaving out other topics…or you let individuals choose.
Let parents make the decision as to which of the topics they think important. That way if Robert wants his children to focus on math and Feynman’s focus (which I gather he would), then he can send them to that school. If you want your kid to know about democracy and ethics then you can send them to a different school. If I want my children to know that the Earth is flat and that aliens populated the Earth with the souls of other dead aliens, then I can send them to that school. Which will be more successful? I would bet that Robert’s children would be….but you might disagree… Should you be forced to send your kid to my school? No. Should you set a standard that forces my kids to know about the value of democracy when I think that Democracy is The God that Failed. No.
By the way. Hoppe’s book is phenomenal.
Let people be free…then they can all fulfill (and fund) their own desires.
I think that Democracy is The God that Failed … Hoppe’s book is phenomenal.
“Informed by his analysis of the deficiencies of social democracy, and armed with the social theory of legitimation, he forsees secession as the likely future of the US and Europe, resulting in a multitude of region and city-states.”
Sounds like you’ll be AWOL for “the great task remaining before us–that from these honored dead we take increased devotion to that cause for which they gave the last full measure of devotion–that we here highly resolve that these dead shall not have died in vain, that this nation under God shall have a new birth of freedom, and that government of the people, by the people, for the people shall not perish from the earth.”
The judicial branch is a policy making branch of government. It should not be, but the reality is that it is.
How much do you know about Lincoln? He is your shining example?
Lets review that statement with regard to the war that had just taken place. “…shall have a new birth of freedom” but not the freedom, as stated in the Declaration of Independence to “…dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them…”
“…and that government of the people…” just not those from the South who don’t believe that you represent them.
“…by the people…” again, not Jefferson Davis.
“…for the people shall not perish from the earth.” After he had just killed more than a million people fighting the ability of man to make and destroy its political alliances?
Yeah, I am kinda AWOL there.
Now that we have started on this topic. Here is a great article that summarizes the actual causes of the war and who Lincoln was as a man and as a President. http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig2/miller1.html
A critique of points in your link from a quick google:
Neither Dickens nor Marx had any particular expertise on US politics; both knew what they saw in the newspapers.
The Marx quote is misleadingly out of context, too. Marx used the quoted words but was expressing his disagreement with them. Here’s a fuller version (see http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1861/10/25.htm).
[begin quote]
For months the leading weekly and daily papers of the London press have been reiterating the same litany on the American Civil War. While they insult the free states of the North, they anxiously defend themselves against the suspicion of sympathising with the slave states of the South. In fact, they continually write two articles: one article, in which they attack the North, and another article, in which they excuse their attacks on the North.
In essence the extenuating arguments read: The war between the North and South is a tariff war. The war is, further, not for any principle, does not touch the question of slavery and in fact turns on Northern lust for sovereignty.
[end quote]
Eric,
I grant you that it appears the Marx quote was drastically misquoted. However, in his more thorough quote he gives even more substantiation to the view that is put forth in my original link. He is arguing against the major newspapers of the time. Who supported the right of the South to secede, for all the major reasons given in the original link.
Back to the original topic, see:
http://www.aft.org/pubs-reports/american_educator/issues/winter09_10/hirsch.pdf
Stan, you state, “and the rest of your fellow citizens have not invested in making these schools powerful enough to overcome all of these disadvantages, you probably don’t do so well.” It would take an enormous amount of government power to overcome these disadvantages.
Can you imagine the hue and cry if the government began to take the children from the ghetto and putting them into enormous orphanage/school complexes? That is what it would take, removal of these kids from their culture. [I am not forgetting about poor white kids, it’s just the media would not care.]
I do not want to give the government that kind of power. Because the next thing that would happen is that the government would say, oh those Christian parents who are homeschooling their kids are abusing them. Don’t think it can happen? It is happening in Germany today.
What about people coming from the suburbs with time, expertise and money, into the urban schools? That’s what I had in mind, not orphanages.
Stan, that mostly won’t happen. Parents love their children and want the best for them. Urban schools are inhospitable to middle class kids and those kids won’t be challenged; their schooling will be inferior. No, it is time that urban areas and people take ownership of their problems and fix them.
They don’t even need to send their kids. They can go themselves. As with the impossible metaphor of “pulling yourself up by your bootstraps” the people who have the least are not going to catch up by themselves, No one does. People succeed because of others who have gotten them partway. Kids succeed in the suburbs because of the advantages they are given.
Bootstraps have worked for some groups. For example, Catholics benefited from leaving public (pan-Protestant) schools for parochial schools.
Perhaps urban schools could identify curriculum that helps kids succeed despite difficult circumstances. OldProf has blogged about such curricula, but apparently felt his ideas would not be received well within DPS.
Ok, Stan, I will repost my rules for kids in bad school districts to avoid poverty.
Before you graduate from high school
1. Work hard in school
2. Avoid sex
3. Avoid bad kids and violence
4. Avoid booze, gambling, smoking
5. Get a part-time job
After you graduate
6. Avoid sex until you are married
7. Be very careful in who you do marry
8. Stay faithful
9. Work hard at your job and try to do a better job today
10. Get additional training and schooling
11. Be very frugal and save money
12. Do not gamble, including the lottery
13. Avoid booze, smoking and violence
14. If you are living in an impoverished area, move out
15. Pay attention to the education of your children
If you do this, you will have broken the cycle of poverty
1. Work hard in school
Just ignore those disruptive classmates and teach-to-the-test instruction that ignores the kids who are at grade level or above?
While that’s a good list, your’re expecting quite a bit of children in the “follow good examples and avoid bad examples” department–perhaps item 14 needed to come earlier in the list.
Having come from a family where nobody graduated from high school 2 generations ago, one side of the family is immigrant and the other is Dayton-mutt, I can tell you how they “broke” the cycle. It is a story of saving and investing in future generations. Poverty is not usually about how much income people earn. It is about the method in which wealth is used by the family. Please see the following study: http://mises.org/daily/3822
This study does a good job of identifying that many of the people who aren’t “earning” enough to live are actually “making” as much as people who are working to earn $40,000 a year.
The question is, “What do I do with my money?”
The best answer is “invest’. This doesn’t mean in the stock market…it means invest in whatever you can to make yourself and your family wealthier. This can be education and training; it can be a small business; it can be a savings account; it can be anything except, alcohol, cigarettes, drugs, hookers…essentially, expenditures that don’t generate future earning potential.
Please see this article that essentially shoots holes in the concept that the “generational poverty” issue is nearly as clear-cut as people here seem to indicate. http://www.capmag.com/article.asp?ID=4519
As a person who does interact with 2nd and 3rd generation poverty, I can tell you the 3 main easily identifiable reasons in this area in only one example.
Example: The mom is 29 the daughter is 14 and pregnant and the grandmother is 46; none are married and none have graduated high school or have a GED. (Yes, this is real life.)
Reason 1) Not being old enough to care for a child and engaging in activities lead to a family.
Reason 2) Not having a family structure and two active parents, engaged in both raising and earning for the family.
Reason 3) Lack of education and training with which to support the family.
As a matter of fact, I actually know one family who until recently met all of these statistics and the family income is over $100,000.00 after a marriage of the, at the time, 34 year old grandmother.
I like the 14 points listed above. I think you can summarize them in less.
1) avoid a family before you can afford one
2) invest in your earning potential
3) don’t waste money early in life…compound interest is amazing
4) if you are going to have a family, ensure that you have a family, it takes at least two people to successfully raise a child (I know there are some exceptions but those are exceptions)
5) be mobile…move to find the best option for yourself
6) work hard every day
Lots of hardworking people get laid off, or ripped off. People change and relationships change. Moving out of impoverished areas can be easier said than done, and arguably just makes things worse for those who move later. Plus the problems may just move with you. Long term celibacy doesn’t work for many people. Perhaps most significantly, all of this advice assumes that individuals have a lot more control of how things are than they do, that culture is less important than it is, and that we aren’t all living off of, or being torn down by, the “capital” (good and bad) of the past.