Palin's Speech: What do you think?

[_asbestosman]

Wow Dart, I retract my previous statement about agreeing with you. I mean sure, I think that disadvantaged children have an opportunity for education even though they have a harder time due to parental life due to poor parents working crazy hours at minimum wage. Yet I don't think we can blame the parents for the parenting--they cannot possibly provide what the middle class parents do because they work so hard just to live. I don't think most poor parents could break the cycle of poverty even if they knew how to be good parents--they simply cannot spend quality time helping the kids read early on and still put food on the table.

[_asbestosman]

This entire country was built by the poor, from Ellis Island to millions coming out of WWII with the GI Bill to endless recent immigrants who have done very well here even when arriving with little to begin with and language barriers.

Yes Droopy, some of the poor have done very well. Keep in mind, though, that our eceonmy is different today than it was 50 or 100 years ago. Our economy is built on services and especially skills. 100 years ago, life was more agrarian, and an education wasn't nearly as vital to make it. Even today some less educated people can make it big, but it is much less likely.

Finally, I'm not convinced that the poor of the past who helped build this country were mostly uneducated. Many could read the Bible.

[_dartagnan]

Yet I don't think we can blame the parents for the parenting--they cannot possibly provide what the middle class parents do because they work so hard just to live.

What is it that they cannot provide? I'm talking about personal relationships and instilling a sense of morality and responsibility. Lay out a future plan for the children, get them involved, let them know exactly how they can obtain whatever future they want, and reward them for educational acheivement. This doesn't require money on the parent's behalf. It just requires education which is where I think government programns should step in and help them know what it is they need to teach and how exactly they should behave around their kids. But most parents don't do this because parents have a tendency to raise their kids the way they were raised by their own parents. The cycle can be broken, but we can't expect teh children to do it on their own. The parents have to take that responsibility and burden.

I don't think most poor parents could break the cycle of poverty even if they knew how to be good parents--they simply cannot spend quality time helping the kids read early on and still put food on the table.

My parents never helped me read, and yet, I read. Why? Because I learned it in school. Not a private school for rich kids. Just a typical government funded school that was occupied by kids of various economic backgrounds and races. Poorer kids don't tend to take education as seriously and that is where the parents need to step in and influence them with respect to that.

[_dartagnan]

Finally, I'm not convinced that the poor of the past who helped build this country were mostly uneducated. Many could read the Bible.

That makes them educated?

[_asbestosman]

What is it that they cannot provide?

Time helping their kids with their education.

I'm talking about personal relationships and instilling a sense of morality and responsibility. Lay out a future plan for the children, get them involved, let them know exactly how they can obtain whatever future they want, and reward them for educational acheivement.

I agree with you that such things are important, but you also need to spend time with kids. Also, it is more difficult for people to learn to read if they don't get exposure early on which will not be so likely to happen if their parents canno read.

This doesn't require money on the parent's behalf.

But it does require time, and you won't have time without money.

The cycle can be broken, but we can't expect the children to do it on their own.

Quite true. Even though some children may break the cycle on their own, many more will benefit from help.

The parents have to take that responsibility and burden.

I think that while some are irresponsible, some take all the burden and responsibility they can but it still won't be enough.

My parents never helped me read, and yet, I read.

Well, that's debatable--at least as far as comprehension is concerned (although you seem to have read my previous post decently).

Anyhow, having parents involved in their children's education is very beneficial. I may never have learned my multiplication tables without my mom teaching me, and I was actually quite good at higher math like calculus in later years. Teaching me that it was important was good, but it wouldn't have been enough--I probably wouldn't have cared because times tables are boring (but oddly I think calculus is fun).

Furthermore early exposure to reading, while not strictly necessary for literacy, is a great help. Some may make it without such exposure, but early exposure makes it easier.

Poorer kids don't tend to take education as seriously and that is where the parents need to step in and influence them with respect to that.

What I'm saying is that such influence, while very important, isn't sufficient. Furthermore disadvantaged parents have a more difficult time finding time to spend helping their children with their education.

[_Droopy]

Yes Droopy, some of the poor have done very well.

No, many, many poor have done well. This is ahistorical.

Keep in mind, though, that our eceonmy is different today than it was 50 or 100 years ago. Our economy is built on services and especially skills. 100 years ago, life was more agrarian, and an education wasn't nearly as vital to make it. Even today some less educated people can make it big, but it is much less likely.

And our public education system has all but collapsed. Blacks have an especially difficult road to hoe because of the destruction of the quality of inner city schools by the educracy and attitudes that associate middle class values (anti-"middle classness"-think Jeremiah Wright) with "acting white" and with racial betrayal.

[_asbestosman]

Finally, I'm not convinced that the poor of the past who helped build this country were mostly uneducated. Many could read the Bible.

That makes them educated?

No, it makes them literate. That gives them a great advantage over those who cannot read and makes it more likely that they could obtain an education or become self-educated through further reading even if they never set foot in a classroom.

[_asbestosman]

Blacks have an especially difficult road to hoe because of the destruction of the quality of inner city schools by the educracy and attitudes that associate middle class values (anti-"middle classness"-think Jeremiah Wright) with "acting white" and with racial betrayal.

I doubt that's the main cause of their educational difficulties. I think the disadvantaged home life has a lot more to do with it.

[_beastie]

One clarification - parents don't have to help children actually "learn to read", although learning the ABCs prior to school is a tremendous help, as is learning to write one's name.

When I talk about how some deprived children are already five years behind their cohorts, I'm talking about whether or not parents simply read books to their children on a daily basis, and discuss what they're reading with them.

Parents reading aloud to their children is such a natural part of middle class American life that we barely even register how important it is, and that leads us to underestimate its importance. I've already mentioned the educational "Mathew Effect". The data behind it is staggering, as is the measurable impact on children, and the difference between those who have and those who have not increases geometrically every year. If, on top of simply reading books out loud to the child every day, parents actually engage the children in words and text, the effects are amazing.

Middle class Americans are shocked to discover that there are many, many children in our society whose parents never read aloud to them, because the parents, themselves, possess borderline literacy and had extremely negative associations with reading. It is such a natural part of our world that it's hard to imagine a world without it.

[_dartagnan]

Time helping their kids with their education.

My parents didn't spend any time with my education that is for sure.

I agree with you that such things are important, but you also need to spend time with kids.

This doesn't logically follow since parents in middle-class society do not generally spend time educating their kids. Education is something a child is exposed to in school. When he or she gets home, they aren't expected to sit through more of it with their parents, and parents from all economic background don't generally engage in it.

Also, it is more difficult for people to learn to read if they don't get exposure early on which will not be so likely to happen if their parents canno read.

Poorer children are no more disadvantaged than middle-class children when it comes to education. It is readily accessible to both.

But it does require time, and you won't have time without money.

You seem to think poorer families work more than middle-class families. What about those on welfare who sit around and smoke and watch TV all day? I've been in quite a few homes where parents do precisely that.

Even though some children may break the cycle on their own, many more will benefit from help.

Yes, and that help can only come by changing the mentality of the parents. Bill Cosby hit on this point so many times. Why is it that poorer black folks will complain about money, and yet they manage to spend hundreds of dollars on cool shoes or gold frontal teeth or chrome 22 inch rims for their 10 year old car?

Well, that's debatable--at least as far as comprehension is concerned (although you seem to have read my previous post decently).

Don't be a smart ass, you get my point. One doesn't need to be taken by the hand as a child in order to learn how to read. What is needed is that they are taught a sense of urgency and importance when it comes to education. My parents congratulated us when we did well in school. That was about all it took really. I know for a fact my mother and father never sat me down and showed me how to read. My mother was only 16 when she got pregnant with me, and when I was born my father was transferred in the military, so we lived in Germany for a few years and moved back and forth. My mother was the first person in her family to finish high school and my father was always out in the field doing whatever it was he was doing for the Army. I got my education where I was supposed to get it: schools.

Anyhow, having parents involved in their children's education is very beneficial.

Of course it is, and nobody has said otherwise. But beneficial and necessary are two different things.

Furthermore early exposure to reading, while not strictly necessary for literacy, is a great help.

Again, nobody is denying that it is beneficial.

What I'm saying is that such influence, while very important, isn't sufficient.

Well, I am living proof that it is, as well as the majority of middle-class families.

Furthermore disadvantaged parents have a more difficult time finding time to spend helping their children with their education.

This is another myth. Middle-Class families aren't on welfare. They work sometimes more than poorer folks. Just because they make more money doesn't mean they work fewer hours.

I doubt that's the main cause of their educational difficulties. I think the disadvantaged home life has a lot more to do with it.

And this is why black America is not getting itself out of its abysmal state. Because too many are convinced of this failed philosophy that you just expressed. It is what keeps Jesse Jackson and Jeremiah Wright in business. It makes it easier for racial division and for the black community to create a society within society, while seeing itself as the eternal victim of an oppressive state. It is an utter joke. Again, I don't need to theorize, because I have the proof. Blacks from other countries are more likely to succeed in America whereas those born here are infected with this twisted philosophy that says they'll always be disavantaged nomatter what. It is a culture of irresponsibility. Nobody wants to be held accountable for their own failiures, and they go ahead and take it for granted that they'll become nothing in this society because they were already doomed from the start.