billisonboard
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 22:45:44 GMT -5
Posts: 37,386
|
Post by billisonboard on Feb 15, 2021 14:34:24 GMT -5
When the only thing you see is what you live, the only way you live is what you see.
|
|
formerroomate99
Junior Associate
Joined: Sept 12, 2011 13:33:12 GMT -5
Posts: 7,381
|
Post by formerroomate99 on Feb 15, 2021 18:52:43 GMT -5
Bad parents make bad schools. Being poor doesn’t necessarily make one a bad parent. I saw this at my sons school, where the parents who lived in the trailer park next-door showed up for every single parent teacher conference. But there’s a lot of overlap between the things that make you poor forever and the things that make you a shitty parent. Immaturity, laziness, past trauma, mental illness, inability to delay gratification, drug use. I don’t disagree with you. What I don’t know is how having kids from good families is supposed to turn a school around. The kids from the bad families are still going to come from the bad families. That’s why I never understood why everyone gets upset that affluent families remove their kids from bad schools. You aren’t going to change the bad parents to suddenly have them care. Yes, scores will go up because the kids from good families will do better. But I doubt the kids from bad families are going to suddenly do better My family tree is littered with parents who aren’t fit to raise a kitten. In previous generations, the bad parents didn’t have a financial incentive to keep their kids, so the kids who lost the parent lottery ended up being bounced around between relatives who had their acts together and orphanages. For the most part, that system worked. They knew that their parents were losers, not victims,. They were taught the behaviors that lead to success. And most were able to give their children a much better life than what they got. Then the welfare system started paying idiots to breed. All offers to give those poor children a better life were rejected. And we spent the next 40 years watching helplessly as two generations were raised in an effed up culture by unfit parents. Upward mobility ground to a halt. When Newt Gingringe suggested bringing back orphanages, everybody on the left when apoplectic over it. Apparently, having as many children as possible raised by parents who don’t have their act together as what they want. There’s no point in even trying to work with someone who has that mindset.
|
|
Miss Tequila
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 19, 2010 10:13:45 GMT -5
Posts: 20,602
|
Post by Miss Tequila on Feb 15, 2021 18:56:04 GMT -5
When the only thing you see is what you live, the only way you live is what you see. Agreed. But how is it fair to lump kids from good families into these schools that are rife with parents that don’t care, kids with behavioral issues and kids that just can keep up because their parents either didn’t care enough to work with them or were too busy working three jobs? It seems like it would bring the kids who could excel down, while possibly boosting up kids who would be underperformers (assuming that kids from a different walk of life are going to turn it around because a few well-to-do kids are in their school As a parent, I’m not willing to sacrifice my child in hopes of it being for the better good. How many people on here willingly chose to put their kids in underpforming schools?
|
|
billisonboard
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 22:45:44 GMT -5
Posts: 37,386
|
Post by billisonboard on Feb 15, 2021 19:23:41 GMT -5
When the only thing you see is what you live, the only way you live is what you see. Agreed. But how is it fair to lump kids from good families into these schools that are rife with parents that don’t care, kids with behavioral issues and kids that just can keep up because their parents either didn’t care enough to work with them or were too busy working three jobs? It seems like it would bring the kids who could excel down, while possibly boosting up kids who would be underperformers (assuming that kids from a different walk of life are going to turn it around because a few well-to-do kids are in their school As a parent, I’m not willing to sacrifice my child in hopes of it being for the better good. How many people on here willingly chose to put their kids in underpforming schools? No problem. The kids can just pay taxes to support and police their peers as adults.
|
|
Miss Tequila
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 19, 2010 10:13:45 GMT -5
Posts: 20,602
|
Post by Miss Tequila on Feb 15, 2021 19:34:19 GMT -5
Agreed. But how is it fair to lump kids from good families into these schools that are rife with parents that don’t care, kids with behavioral issues and kids that just can keep up because their parents either didn’t care enough to work with them or were too busy working three jobs? It seems like it would bring the kids who could excel down, while possibly boosting up kids who would be underperformers (assuming that kids from a different walk of life are going to turn it around because a few well-to-do kids are in their school As a parent, I’m not willing to sacrifice my child in hopes of it being for the better good. How many people on here willingly chose to put their kids in underpforming schools? No problem. The kids can just pay taxes to support and police their peers as adults. I think it is really easy for people to talk theoretical situations. Did you put your children in underperforming schools for the benefit of the poor kids? Or did you want the best for your children? My kids aren’t social experiments. My job as a parent is to do the best I can for my children. Part of that means getting them the best education I can. It’s sad that not all parents feel the same but my kids shouldn’t be sacrificed because other parents suck
|
|
billisonboard
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 22:45:44 GMT -5
Posts: 37,386
|
Post by billisonboard on Feb 15, 2021 19:56:14 GMT -5
No problem. The kids can just pay taxes to support and police their peers as adults. I think it is really easy for people to talk theoretical situations. Did you put your children in underperforming schools for the benefit of the poor kids? Or did you want the best for your children? My kids aren’t social experiments. My job as a parent is to do the best I can for my children. Part of that means getting them the best education I can. It’s sad that not all parents feel the same but my kids shouldn’t be sacrificed because other parents suck I lived in zero choice rural America when I was parenting stepchildren.
|
|
minnesotapaintlady
Junior Associate
Joined: Dec 9, 2020 21:48:27 GMT -5
Posts: 7,351
Member is Online
|
Post by minnesotapaintlady on Feb 15, 2021 19:59:39 GMT -5
No problem. The kids can just pay taxes to support and police their peers as adults. I think it is really easy for people to talk theoretical situations. Did you put your children in underperforming schools for the benefit of the poor kids? Or did you want the best for your children? My kids aren’t social experiments. My job as a parent is to do the best I can for my children. Part of that means getting them the best education I can. It’s sad that not all parents feel the same but my kids shouldn’t be sacrificed because other parents suck That was my thought process. I know that the best thing for society would be for everyone to put their kids in public school and for all the resources and parent support to be channeled that way...but...that's not what's happening and I'm not going to make my kids sacrificial lambs for the cause. Having said that, my kids might have been fine at public, I won't ever know. I just made the choice I thought was best for them and lord knows it wasn't an easy decision. I don't like to spend money on anything if I can get it for free.
|
|
Miss Tequila
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 19, 2010 10:13:45 GMT -5
Posts: 20,602
|
Post by Miss Tequila on Feb 15, 2021 21:03:45 GMT -5
I think it is really easy for people to talk theoretical situations. Did you put your children in underperforming schools for the benefit of the poor kids? Or did you want the best for your children? My kids aren’t social experiments. My job as a parent is to do the best I can for my children. Part of that means getting them the best education I can. It’s sad that not all parents feel the same but my kids shouldn’t be sacrificed because other parents suck I lived in zero choice rural America when I was parenting stepchildren. Rural America doesn’t mean the schools were bad, though. And there are always choices, whether it is moving or sending the kids to private school
|
|
billisonboard
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 22:45:44 GMT -5
Posts: 37,386
|
Post by billisonboard on Feb 15, 2021 21:13:03 GMT -5
No problem. The kids can just pay taxes to support and police their peers as adults. I think it is really easy for people to talk theoretical situations. Did you put your children in underperforming schools for the benefit of the poor kids? Or did you want the best for your children? My kids aren’t social experiments. My job as a parent is to do the best I can for my children. Part of that means getting them the best education I can. It’s sad that not all parents feel the same but my kids shouldn’t be sacrificed because other parents suck We should be strong advocates for our children as parents. But there are roles we play beyond being "parent" or any other singular thing. It was men who passed the Constitutional Amendment giving women the right to vote. It was predominately white legislators who passed the Civil Rights Act benefiting blacks. A straight majority extended the right to marry to same sex couples. Sometimes the right move is done by civil authority that is not in personal narrow self interest.
|
|
Miss Tequila
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 19, 2010 10:13:45 GMT -5
Posts: 20,602
|
Post by Miss Tequila on Feb 15, 2021 21:53:40 GMT -5
I think it is really easy for people to talk theoretical situations. Did you put your children in underperforming schools for the benefit of the poor kids? Or did you want the best for your children? My kids aren’t social experiments. My job as a parent is to do the best I can for my children. Part of that means getting them the best education I can. It’s sad that not all parents feel the same but my kids shouldn’t be sacrificed because other parents suck We should be strong advocates for our children as parents. But there are roles we play beyond being "parent" or any other singular thing. It was men who passed the Constitutional Amendment giving women the right to vote. It was predominately white legislators who passed the Civil Rights Act benefiting blacks. A straight majority extended the right to marry to same sex couples. Sometimes the right move is done by civil authority that is not in personal narrow self interest. And it would be a shame if they sacrificed children’s education because some parents can’t get their shit together. My kids are grown and I could afford to send my grandchildren to private school if my daughter couldn’t. I feel bad foe the good families who paid all they could afford to get their kids into good schools, only to have bleeding hearts decide that all kids must suffer. Like I said, bringing everyone down to the lowest common denominator.
|
|
TheOtherMe
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 24, 2010 14:40:52 GMT -5
Posts: 26,962
Mini-Profile Name Color: e619e6
|
Post by TheOtherMe on Feb 16, 2021 9:33:12 GMT -5
Growing up, I lived in a somewhat diversified town. I went to the Black high school. The only private school I was aware of were Catholic schools. Until high school, that did not end up with White flight.
When I moved to Denver, it was truly diversified. Lots of White parents sending their kids to private schools not affiliated with religion to get them out of Denver public schools. True White flight. It's still happening there.
How are families supposed to get out of poverty if society never gives them the means? A large number of people in poverty are minorities, whether it be Black, Brown, or something else. People deserve an opportunity.
|
|
gs11rmb
Senior Member
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 12:43:39 GMT -5
Posts: 3,298
|
Post by gs11rmb on Feb 16, 2021 9:35:20 GMT -5
No problem. The kids can just pay taxes to support and police their peers as adults. I think it is really easy for people to talk theoretical situations. Did you put your children in underperforming schools for the benefit of the poor kids? Or did you want the best for your children? My kids aren’t social experiments. My job as a parent is to do the best I can for my children. Part of that means getting them the best education I can. It’s sad that not all parents feel the same but my kids shouldn’t be sacrificed because other parents suck I did not and I would not. I know it sounds as if I'm criticizing parents for making the best choices for their children but if our zoned school was objectively bad I would opt to send my girls somewhere else. I recognize my hypocrisy. I also recognize that school choice, charter schools, vouchers, etc. have not benefited the most vulnerable students but have contributed toward the downward slide of their schools. I guess what really makes me angry is that (the collective) 'we' saw some truly terrible schools and decided that the solution was to have better schools but only for students whose parents would or could make that choice.
|
|
Miss Tequila
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 19, 2010 10:13:45 GMT -5
Posts: 20,602
|
Post by Miss Tequila on Feb 16, 2021 9:42:03 GMT -5
Growing up, I lived in a somewhat diversified town. I went to the Black high school. The only private school I was aware of were Catholic schools. Until high school, that did not end up with White flight. When I moved to Denver, it was truly diversified. Lots of White parents sending their kids to private schools not affiliated with religion to get them out of Denver public schools. True White flight. It's still happening there. How are families supposed to get out of poverty if society never gives them the means? A large number of people in poverty are minorities, whether it be Black, Brown, or something else. People deserve an opportunity. I don’t understand your question. First, I never brought race into this. When I say underperforming schools, that’s all I’m talking about. I don’t care the race of the students that go there. I can’t speak for all areas, but in my area we very large school districts. The home school is based on where you live. Since they are in the same district, the funding is the same (teachers in the district are all paid the same, regardless of the school they teach at). More resources are actually thrown at the underperforming schools as those kids need more help (which I agree with, btw). How are we not giving the kids in the poor areas an opportunity? It is very hard for a school or teacher to overcome a child’s home life. If parents don’t value school, the kid isn’t going to value school. Why are we going to force kids who are excelling into a school that isn’t? The problem isn’t that we don’t care about the poor (again, in my area those schools get even more resources) but that I don’t think it’s fair to make the other kids sacrificial lambs.
|
|
Miss Tequila
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 19, 2010 10:13:45 GMT -5
Posts: 20,602
|
Post by Miss Tequila on Feb 16, 2021 9:50:44 GMT -5
I think it is really easy for people to talk theoretical situations. Did you put your children in underperforming schools for the benefit of the poor kids? Or did you want the best for your children? My kids aren’t social experiments. My job as a parent is to do the best I can for my children. Part of that means getting them the best education I can. It’s sad that not all parents feel the same but my kids shouldn’t be sacrificed because other parents suck I did not and I would not. I know it sounds as if I'm criticizing parents for making the best choices for their children but if our zoned school was objectively bad I would opt to send my girls somewhere else. I recognize my hypocrisy. I also recognize that school choice, charter schools, vouchers, etc. have not benefited the most vulnerable students but have contributed toward the downward slide of their schools. I guess what really makes me angry is that (the collective) 'we' saw some truly terrible schools and decided that the solution was to have better schools but only for students whose parents would or could make that choice. I agree to a point. I keep speaking about my area because that’s what I know. The district I spoke of earlier, where there were three high schools that they consolidated into one (meshing two underperforming and one that was doing well). Anyway, I don’t know if it is a state law or just what the district does, but the students in the underperforming elementary schools (based on state testing), have the right to move to a sister school that is performing well. Funding is the same in all schools so the difference is truly the kids/families. Guess how many parents in the underperforming schools make the move?? Very few. In the same respect, the parents in the good schools were livid because they didn’t want to bring the problems to their children’s classrooms. A pretty valid concern if you knew the issues in the underperforming schools (we are talking older brothers who are in gangs, not just that little Johnny’s mom is always drunk). I sincerely don’t know how we overcome a child’s home life. It’s not that I want any child to fail. But we can throw all the money we want at schools, until we change the mindset I don’t know what good it will do.
|
|
Miss Tequila
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 19, 2010 10:13:45 GMT -5
Posts: 20,602
|
Post by Miss Tequila on Feb 16, 2021 9:53:02 GMT -5
I think it is really easy for people to talk theoretical situations. Did you put your children in underperforming schools for the benefit of the poor kids? Or did you want the best for your children? My kids aren’t social experiments. My job as a parent is to do the best I can for my children. Part of that means getting them the best education I can. It’s sad that not all parents feel the same but my kids shouldn’t be sacrificed because other parents suck I did not and I would not. I know it sounds as if I'm criticizing parents for making the best choices for their children but if our zoned school was objectively bad I would opt to send my girls somewhere else. I recognize my hypocrisy. I also recognize that school choice, charter schools, vouchers, etc. have not benefited the most vulnerable students but have contributed toward the downward slide of their schools. I guess what really makes me angry is that (the collective) 'we' saw some truly terrible schools and decided that the solution was to have better schools but only for students whose parents would or could make that choice. I agree to a point. I keep speaking about my area because that’s what I know. The district I spoke of earlier, where there were three high schools that they consolidated into one (meshing two underperforming and one that was doing well). Anyway, I don’t know if it is a state law or just what the district does, but the students in the underperforming elementary schools (based on state testing), have the right to move to a sister school that is performing well. Funding is the same in all schools so the difference is truly the kids/families. Guess how many parents in the underperforming schools make the move?? Very few. In the same respect, the parents in the good schools were livid because they didn’t want to bring the problems to their children’s classrooms. A pretty valid concern if you knew the issues in the underperforming schools (we are talking older brothers who are in gangs, not just that little Johnny’s mom is always drunk). I sincerely don’t know how we overcome a child’s home life. It’s not that I want any child to fail. But we can throw all the money we want at schools, until we change the mindset I don’t know what good it will do. ETA: I don’t think I’m expressing my thoughts clearly. What I’m trying to say is that if it is the mindset of the parents making the schools underperformers, I don’t know how you change that. I want every child to have a shot at life, but putting other kids at risk is not the answer.
|
|
formerroomate99
Junior Associate
Joined: Sept 12, 2011 13:33:12 GMT -5
Posts: 7,381
|
Post by formerroomate99 on Feb 16, 2021 13:36:49 GMT -5
I think it is really easy for people to talk theoretical situations. Did you put your children in underperforming schools for the benefit of the poor kids? Or did you want the best for your children? My kids aren’t social experiments. My job as a parent is to do the best I can for my children. Part of that means getting them the best education I can. It’s sad that not all parents feel the same but my kids shouldn’t be sacrificed because other parents suck We should be strong advocates for our children as parents. But there are roles we play beyond being "parent" or any other singular thing. It was men who passed the Constitutional Amendment giving women the right to vote. It was predominately white legislators who passed the Civil Rights Act benefiting blacks. A straight majority extended the right to marry to same sex couples. Sometimes the right move is done by civil authority that is not in personal narrow self interest. This is one reason why previous generations went to the trouble of creating and running orphanages. There has never been a time in history when running an orphanage would be cheaper or easier than giving a little bit aid to train wrecks parents. But previous generations realized that if they wanted these children to have a shot in life, they needed to get them away from their loser parents. 100 years ago, a pedophile could get a job as a public school teacher and expect to go his entire career, abusing hundreds of children, without ever being held responsible for his actions. We didn’t shut down public schools because some abuses happened in the past. We cleaned up these institutions. And we made them better. Is the left that shut down the orphanages.It is the left that created a welfare system that gave people who weren’t ready to be parents a huge financial incentive to procreate and keep the kids, thus creating ghetto culture, along with greatly increasing the number of children being raised by unfit parents. For as long as I’ve been alive, anyone who objected to this has been accused of having the vilest of intentions. And after decades of a failure some people have thrown their hands up and given up, because you can’t work with someone who’s going to proclaim you a Nazi for not wanting to pour vast sums of money into something that has failed for generations. There is a difference between not caring and not wanting to put resources into something that is going to make the problem worse. And there’s no point in proposing ideas when you know it’s going to be shot down and you’ll be labeled as a Nazi.
|
|
thyme4change
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 26, 2010 13:54:08 GMT -5
Posts: 40,329
Member is Online
|
Post by thyme4change on Feb 16, 2021 14:00:40 GMT -5
I doubt this is the motivation for orphanages. Can you please send me a source for a good historical look at orphanages that might indicate this was why people started orphanages?
|
|
stillmovingforward
Senior Member
Hanging on by a thread
Joined: Jan 1, 2014 21:52:58 GMT -5
Posts: 3,066
Today's Mood: Don't Mess with Me!
Location: Not Sure Yet
|
Post by stillmovingforward on Feb 16, 2021 14:49:47 GMT -5
Could we please move this back to the pandemic, net worth, and social inequities related to the pandemic (hidden and unhidden)?
I'm sure several of you are aware of my views on children being mistreated in the name of parents and society. We could get another thread started if we want to address this specific issue.
|
|
phil5185
Junior Associate
Joined: Dec 26, 2010 15:45:49 GMT -5
Posts: 6,409
|
Post by phil5185 on Feb 16, 2021 15:28:51 GMT -5
Here is an interesting read about orphaned children - the orphan trains. I knew an orphan-train-woman near the farm where I grew up, she was found as a small child sitting on a country road. A neighborhood couple gave her a home on their farm, gave her a name, raised her. When she was grown she married a young man on nearby farm, had 4 children, spent her life on that farm (about 85 years she guessed, she never knew her actual birth date.)
|
|
imawino
Junior Associate
Joined: Dec 17, 2010 22:58:16 GMT -5
Posts: 5,359
|
Post by imawino on Feb 16, 2021 15:53:43 GMT -5
I doubt this is the motivation for orphanages. Can you please send me a source for a good historical look at orphanages that might indicate this was why people started orphanages? Maybe some good studies about all the happy, well-adjusted and successful people that came form these idyllic orphanages would be great, as well?
|
|
imawino
Junior Associate
Joined: Dec 17, 2010 22:58:16 GMT -5
Posts: 5,359
|
Post by imawino on Feb 16, 2021 15:56:37 GMT -5
We should be strong advocates for our children as parents. But there are roles we play beyond being "parent" or any other singular thing. It was men who passed the Constitutional Amendment giving women the right to vote. It was predominately white legislators who passed the Civil Rights Act benefiting blacks. A straight majority extended the right to marry to same sex couples. Sometimes the right move is done by civil authority that is not in personal narrow self interest. This is one reason why previous generations went to the trouble of creating and running orphanages. There has never been a time in history when running an orphanage would be cheaper or easier than giving a little bit aid to train wrecks parents. But previous generations realized that if they wanted these children to have a shot in life, they needed to get them away from their loser parents. 100 years ago, a pedophile could get a job as a public school teacher and expect to go his entire career, abusing hundreds of children, without ever being held responsible for his actions. We didn’t shut down public schools because some abuses happened in the past. We cleaned up these institutions. And we made them better. Is the left that shut down the orphanages.It is the left that created a welfare system that gave people who weren’t ready to be parents a huge financial incentive to procreate and keep the kids, thus creating ghetto culture, along with greatly increasing the number of children being raised by unfit parents. For as long as I’ve been alive, anyone who objected to this has been accused of having the vilest of intentions. And after decades of a failure some people have thrown their hands up and given up, because you can’t work with someone who’s going to proclaim you a Nazi for not wanting to pour vast sums of money into something that has failed for generations. There is a difference between not caring and not wanting to put resources into something that is going to make the problem worse. And there’s no point in proposing ideas when you know it’s going to be shot down and you’ll be labeled as a Nazi. I'm pretty sure almost zero of this is accurate.
|
|
giramomma
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Feb 3, 2011 11:25:27 GMT -5
Posts: 21,150
|
Post by giramomma on Feb 16, 2021 16:10:49 GMT -5
I lived in zero choice rural America when I was parenting stepchildren. Rural America doesn’t mean the schools were bad, though. And there are always choices, whether it is moving or sending the kids to private school How easy is it for farmers to move? That's an interesting example to think about.
Not all rural schools are bad, but teachers are not flocking to rural areas to work, either, at least in my state.
The big push to allow folks to teach in high school even if they didn't have a teaching license is because rural schools needed someone to teach trades. Then there was a story where a STEM teacher (I think it was chemistry) was doing online courses between two high schools, before online learning was a thing because of the pandemic. Turns out, one school system couldn't recruit enough to hire a STEM teacher, so sharing was the only other option. Or, of course, just telling kids, too bad, so sad, you want chemistry-well, tell your parents to move.
|
|
Miss Tequila
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 19, 2010 10:13:45 GMT -5
Posts: 20,602
|
Post by Miss Tequila on Feb 16, 2021 16:43:58 GMT -5
Rural America doesn’t mean the schools were bad, though. And there are always choices, whether it is moving or sending the kids to private school How easy is it for farmers to move? That's an interesting example to think about.
Not all rural schools are bad, but teachers are not flocking to rural areas to work, either, at least in my state.
The big push to allow folks to teach in high school even if they didn't have a teaching license is because rural schools needed someone to teach trades. Then there was a story where a STEM teacher (I think it was chemistry) was doing online courses between two high schools, before online learning was a thing because of the pandemic. Turns out, one school system couldn't recruit enough to hire a STEM teacher, so sharing was the only other option. Or, of course, just telling kids, too bad, so sad, you want chemistry-well, tell your parents to move. We have rural areas and very little farming. People move there because of the low cost of living, privacy and not being stuck next to neighbors. Most of my family lives in a rural area and none of them farm. It sounds like the rural schools by you don’t want to pay the wages to attract the teachers. Our schools pay very well so we don’t have issues returning or attracting teachers.
|
|
formerroomate99
Junior Associate
Joined: Sept 12, 2011 13:33:12 GMT -5
Posts: 7,381
|
Post by formerroomate99 on Feb 16, 2021 17:25:45 GMT -5
I doubt this is the motivation for orphanages. Can you please send me a source for a good historical look at orphanages that might indicate this was why people started orphanages? Maybe some good studies about all the happy, well-adjusted and successful people that came form these idyllic orphanages would be great, as well? And compare them to the happy well-adjusted children who were raised on welfare.
|
|
formerroomate99
Junior Associate
Joined: Sept 12, 2011 13:33:12 GMT -5
Posts: 7,381
|
Post by formerroomate99 on Feb 16, 2021 17:27:45 GMT -5
Rural America doesn’t mean the schools were bad, though. And there are always choices, whether it is moving or sending the kids to private school How easy is it for farmers to move? That's an interesting example to think about.
Not all rural schools are bad, but teachers are not flocking to rural areas to work, either, at least in my state.
The big push to allow folks to teach in high school even if they didn't have a teaching license is because rural schools needed someone to teach trades. Then there was a story where a STEM teacher (I think it was chemistry) was doing online courses between two high schools, before online learning was a thing because of the pandemic. Turns out, one school system couldn't recruit enough to hire a STEM teacher, so sharing was the only other option. Or, of course, just telling kids, too bad, so sad, you want chemistry-well, tell your parents to move. Homeschooling is an option for some.
|
|
TheOtherMe
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 24, 2010 14:40:52 GMT -5
Posts: 26,962
Mini-Profile Name Color: e619e6
|
Post by TheOtherMe on Feb 16, 2021 17:55:05 GMT -5
Rural America doesn’t mean the schools were bad, though. And there are always choices, whether it is moving or sending the kids to private school How easy is it for farmers to move? That's an interesting example to think about.
Not all rural schools are bad, but teachers are not flocking to rural areas to work, either, at least in my state.
The big push to allow folks to teach in high school even if they didn't have a teaching license is because rural schools needed someone to teach trades. Then there was a story where a STEM teacher (I think it was chemistry) was doing online courses between two high schools, before online learning was a thing because of the pandemic. Turns out, one school system couldn't recruit enough to hire a STEM teacher, so sharing was the only other option. Or, of course, just telling kids, too bad, so sad, you want chemistry-well, tell your parents to move. People around me actually farm. I don't have to drive further than a block in any direction and there is a cornfield. My BIL farms his two farms and has all of his adult years. When the Iowa governor decided kids had to be in school in person last fall without an exception from her, she made it so pretty much anyone who could pass the background check could teach. A lot of older teachers went on unpaid leave or retired. Now that the legislature has passed a law that school must be 100% in person, more teachers are quitting or retiring. I have seen where some are on unpaid leave until they get both vaccines. Some districts are more proactive than others in getting vaccines for their teachers and staff. Last I heard the one in the bigger town was going by age and had gotten everyone over 37 vaccinated. My nephew didn't feel he got proper support as a STEM teacher (math) and left the profession. The other issue with rural schools is lack of broadband so they can't go virtual. The way schools are funded here leads to the low salaries. I'm not very happy with my own school district because they are requiring students who want to go virtual to have a written doctor's excuse. Most districts are still leaving it up to parents.
|
|
buystoys
Junior Associate
Joined: Mar 30, 2012 4:58:12 GMT -5
Posts: 5,650
|
Post by buystoys on Feb 16, 2021 17:58:28 GMT -5
Pay isn't the only issue for rural schools. Many people just don't like being rural. They get used to the activities available in a small or large city and don't want to give up those entertainments. This is one of the same reasons it's difficult to get doctors and nurses to small rural hospitals. There's not a lot to do in the evening and there might not be a lot of sports activities for the kids. I know my home town had nada to do after school sports were over. No summer softball or soccer or anything.
|
|
TheOtherMe
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 24, 2010 14:40:52 GMT -5
Posts: 26,962
Mini-Profile Name Color: e619e6
|
Post by TheOtherMe on Feb 16, 2021 18:07:26 GMT -5
We do have summer sports here in my town for younger kids. In Iowa, baseball and softball are played during the summer.
There is a huge brain drain once kids graduate from college. They leave and many don't return.
I think my sister is lucky. Of her 4 kids, only one is never coming back to this area to live.
Her two younger sons both have an interest in farming. They hope to share the farm someday. One wants to do crops and the other wants to do hogs.
Her daughter says she will never move from this area, although she and her husband have no interest in farming. Her son does so he may join his uncles someday.
|
|
stillmovingforward
Senior Member
Hanging on by a thread
Joined: Jan 1, 2014 21:52:58 GMT -5
Posts: 3,066
Today's Mood: Don't Mess with Me!
Location: Not Sure Yet
|
Post by stillmovingforward on Feb 16, 2021 18:37:03 GMT -5
That can be another issue, no jobs for the spouse. I drive 90 minutes one way for work before the pandemic.
This to ensure a high paying job where i can use my college degree that i worked hard for and enjoy. I could drive 20 minutes for a job in retail, which i don't want and wouldn't enjoy.
|
|
billisonboard
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 22:45:44 GMT -5
Posts: 37,386
|
Post by billisonboard on Feb 16, 2021 18:43:01 GMT -5
That can be another issue, no jobs for the spouse. I drive 90 minutes one way for work before the pandemic. This to ensure a high paying job where i can use my college degree that i worked hard for and enjoy. I could drive 20 minutes for a job in retail, which i don't want and wouldn't enjoy. And doesn't do kids any good if that lack of enjoyment leads to resentment and divorce.
|
|