🚀 go-pugleaf

Desmond and Molly Jones wrote:
> In article <1184786861.900793.235660@i38g2000prf.googlegroups.com>,  
> Pubkeybreaker at pubkeybreaker@aol.com says...
>> Desmond and Molly Jones wrote:
>>
>>> The result is, Edwards continued, if you live in a wealthy suburban
>>> area, the odds are very high that your child will get a very good
>>> public school education. If you live in the inner city or if you live
>>> in a poor rural area, the odds of that go down dramatically.
>> The question that should be asked is:  What is causing this problem?
>>
>> If the problem is that not enough money is being spent on inner city
>> schools, then this is a problem that is correctable.
>>
>> I believe, however, that this is not the root cause of the problem.
>> The "wealthy" suburbs are wealthy because the people living in them
>> are highly skilled, well educated and have high paying jobs because
>> they are well educated.  These people MOTIVATE their children that
>> education is important and push them to succeed.
>>
>> The people living in the inner city, on the other hand, are poor
>> PRECISELY
>> BECAUSE they lack education. They lack education because they did not
>> care about learning when they had the opportunity. They do not VALUE
>> education.
>> And they pass on this attitude to their children.   It is a self-
>> perpetuating problem
>> within inner city families.  Most of whom are single parent families
>> anyway because
>> good 'ol dad  had no sense of responsibility.  The 5 F's  apply.
>>
>> No amount of money spent on schools will educate children who just
>> don't give a
>> sh*t.   This is a cultural problem.  Bill Cosby's remarks are dead
>> center.
> 
> You contradict yourself.

No, he doesn't.


> First you say that inner city kids "are poor
> PRECISELY BECAUSE they lack education."

Technically, it's because their parents lack 
education...and good work habits...and salable job skills.


> Then you say "No amount of 
> money spent on schools will educate children who just don't give a
> sh*t."

He's correct.  Another thing the poor parents of poor 
children is a good attitude about the value of 
education.  They don't value it, and they don't 
encourage their children to value it.  They don't send 
their children to school ready to learn.  They are 
uncooperative with, even belligerent toward, the 
teachers and school administrators.  They don't tell 
their children to keep their fucking mouths shut and 
their goddamned hands to themselves.  Their children 
shout out, fight, throw stuff, do everything they can 
to disrupt the school environment.  It's the parents' 
fault, but the teachers can hardly be expected to keep 
that in mind when some miscreant is attacking them or 
other students in class.

The students don't give a shit because their parents 
don't give a shit.  Money spent trying to instruct 
these animals is an unmitigated waste.


> 
> Education and teachers are there so that kids *DO* give a shit.

NO.  It is not the teachers' job to motivate students. 
  Students need to arrive in class *already* motivated. 
  It is the teachers' job to educate students ready to 
learn, but there are very few such students in inner 
city schools.


> Money 
> buys buildings, blackboards, computers, curriculum, libraries, ball 
> fields, paint, tools and materials.

All that stuff is already there, but it is pearls 
before swine as far as inner city "students" (huh) are 
concerned.


> Put two and two together and you can see *why* kids in poor schools 
> don't give a shit. They are treated like shit.

They don't give a shit because their parents are shit 
who have already instilled shit values in the kids for 
five years before shoving them off to be warehoused for 
another 12 years.