🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <6885wB1w165w@netlink.cts.com>, forcer@netlink.cts.com (Nicholas Rahaghi) writes:
>
>
>Which brings me to this controversy: Is a program like this right? So far 
>we have discussed magnet programs created for smart kids. But we had a 
>program that benefited both. Unfortunatly socio-economical problems 
>teachers had with the set-up caused us to loose much of the "accredited" 
>teachers. 
>
>Can we mix Magnet programs with racial integration? Must American kids 
>travel miles and put up with unnecessary problems to get an education 
>they deserve? Must the poor and less fortunate not have a chance to learn 
>because they live in bad neighborhood? Who wins?
>
>All comments will be appreciated!
>

   It seems that you have already shown that the magnet school you
described was already racially integrated.  

   We could probably get better schools at convenient locations, but
I think a number of unlikely things have to happen.   First, and
foremost, parents have got to want their kids to learn, and have
to keep track of how they are doing.   Not only that, they must
ensure that their kids behave in a proper manner.   Many schools
that have poor education, also have students who are disruptive.
Some schools spend quite a lot of time taking care of disruptive
students which should be an unnecessary task.

   Second, our attitudes to education have to evolve beyond the
derogatory "nerds, geeks, and dweebs" syndrome.   Education need
not force people into social maladepts, if people do not look
at education in a negative fashion.

   I had one idea, which I felt would be quite expensive, and potentially
controversial, and that was to have private schools located away from 
"bad" (violent, poor, etc.) neighborhoods.   The children would attend
while pretty young (so that negative certain values would not have already set
in), and stay during the school year.  Parents could be allowed to visit 
whenever they wanted.   The school would attempt to foster an education-first
attitude, and teach other "social skills" that might be useful.  This
might include conversation skills (over the phone, talking with customers,
etc), formal eating skills (i.e. location and placement of knives, forks,
etc.), public speaking, etc.   There would, in effect, be not only a push
for normal educational skills, but social skills, ethics, etc.    

   Why the need to place it away from "bad neighborhoods"?  To remove influences
that could be detrimental to learning.   The environment would be more controlled.
If families in "bad" neighborhoods are more likely to be disruptive, then
having a school where there are people who are hired to be more caring would
compensate for that (this is the controversial aspect).   To compensate for
that, parents would be given means to talk and see their kids as often as
necessary.   Of course, they should also be involved in helping their kids
do well, but it's my feeling that if this were broadly the case, there might
not be the same kinds of problems now.

   In the long run, one would hope that it would be unnecessary to have
special schools outside the neighborhood, and that these schools could
once again be brought back, and run normally.   If effective, it would
seem to be well worth the price.

--
Charles Lin
clin@eng.umd.edu