The 'Education' Mantra

Is that 72.4% of the kids who start 1st Grade whose class would be graduating in 2011 or is it 72.4% of the students who were enrolled in the high school as freshman that are graduating on time in 2011? From your link it would appear to be the second of the two scenarios LJ. Perhaps MB's stat uses the first? Don't know for certain, just speculating.

What do you think would happen if we tied social welfare benefits to attendance in school and obtaining a HS diploma or equivalent? Do you think we could get more of those lower quartile students to graduate instead of drop out?

The graduate with a science degree asks, "Why does it work?"

The graduate with an engineering degree asks, "How does it work?"

The graduate with an accounting degree asks, "How much will it cost?"

The graduate with an arts degree asks, "Do you want fries with that?"

Are you assuming that EVERYONE who falls into the "poor" and/or "minority" categories is on welfare? How quaint. How "neoconservative."

LadyJazzer wrote: Are you assuming that EVERYONE who falls into the "poor" and/or "minority" categories is on welfare? How quaint. How "neoconservative."

It seems PS asked a simple question without any assumptions. Rather I hear the question as something worth considering. Why is it necessary to condemn someone for looking at data from another perspective and wondering if there would be a correlation? And what if there were a correlation? Is that something to be feared or a problem that needs to be addressed?

The educators have been caught skewing the graduation rates. IIRC, if a kid says he is transferring or moving out of state, he doesn't count against the dropout rate.

Hopefully once kids see the salaries for science and engineering degrees, more will go into those fields. I know I based my college major on both my apptitude and what the pay looked like. My 80's cohorts were starting as pre-med, petroleum engineering and business. And since college costs continue to climb, this is only going to become more important. Hard to pay back 250K in student loans working at Starbucks.

Rockdoc Franz wrote:

LadyJazzer wrote: Are you assuming that EVERYONE who falls into the "poor" and/or "minority" categories is on welfare? How quaint. How "neoconservative."

It seems PS asked a simple question without any assumptions. Rather I hear the question as something worth considering. Why is it necessary to condemn someone for looking at data from another perspective and wondering if there would be a correlation? And what if there were a correlation? Is that something to be feared or a problem that needs to be addressed?

Then, I have a "simple question without any assumptions": How often do you beat your wife?

The fact that some questions are asked in the way they are asked can most certainly presume that the person asking the question has a pre-determined mindset....

LadyJazzer wrote:

Rockdoc Franz wrote:

LadyJazzer wrote: Are you assuming that EVERYONE who falls into the "poor" and/or "minority" categories is on welfare? How quaint. How "neoconservative."

It seems PS asked a simple question without any assumptions. Rather I hear the question as something worth considering. Why is it necessary to condemn someone for looking at data from another perspective and wondering if there would be a correlation? And what if there were a correlation? Is that something to be feared or a problem that needs to be addressed?

Then, I have a "simple question without any assumptions": How often do you beat your wife?

The fact that some questions are asked in the way they are asked can most certainly presume that the person asking the question has a pre-determined mindset....

The answer to your question is: NEVER.
It's obvious you and I ask questions for very different reasons and as such we perceive why questions are asked in very different light as well. I for one do not always have a pre-determined mindset when I ask questions. Mostly I ask for information so I can process it along with other and perhaps contradictory information. There are also leading questions, argumentative questions, suggestive questions, etc. There are a ton of reasons to ask questions and not all are of a pre-determined mindset.

Carry on.

LadyJazzer wrote: Are you assuming that EVERYONE who falls into the "poor" and/or "minority" categories is on welfare? How quaint. How "neoconservative."

Considering the federal poverty level is set at around $18K a year and the lowest quartile income is less than $25K a year, it is a pretty safe bet that nearly all of them are eligible for some form of social welfare support whether it is Section 8 housing, Medicaid, SSDI, child care subsidies, food stamps or another program. The highest percentage of dropouts come from this income quartile, and it is not surprising, to me at least, that education takes a back seat to other priorities when people are struggling just to keep their children fed, clothed and housed. It would not be surprising to me that these children would have less support from their parents in helping them with their school work because their parents themselves never finished school. It would not surprise me to find out that these families didn't have a computer in their home, or access to the internet.

The question I asked is whether or not you thought that by linking social welfare support to attendance in school we could give an incentive to these children to attend classes and receive an education instead of skipping school and hanging out on the street corner or dropping out of school and further reducing the likelihood that they could escape the cycle of poverty that they were unfortunate enough to be born into. Do you think we would have better results linking social welfare participation with attendance in school or in offering a scholarship to a community college if they graduated from high school? Do you think we could give incentive to stay in school if we disallowed those who failed to take advantage of the public educational opportunity the taxpayers provide from participating in other taxpayer funded support programs? Do you think we could get them to stay in school if their continued attendance resulted in an increase in social welfare program benefits?

We all know there is a problem my friend, the question then becomes how to best address the problem so that the problem diminishes instead of continuing to grow.

Brazil has a program that pays families for kids to stay in school. Since in their economy, the family can make more money having the kids work on the street, you have to offer low income people a reason to keep their kids in school.
I wouldn't be surprised to see test programs like this in Detroit and other urban areas coming soon.
Remember last year when the DPS chief opened the schools early after snowstorms so local kids could be fed?

PrintSmith wrote:

LadyJazzer wrote: Are you assuming that EVERYONE who falls into the "poor" and/or "minority" categories is on welfare? How quaint. How "neoconservative."

Considering the federal poverty level is set at around $18K a year and the lowest quartile income is less than $25K a year, it is a pretty safe bet that nearly all of them are eligible for some form of social welfare support whether it is Section 8 housing, Medicaid, SSDI, child care subsidies, food stamps or another program.

Like I said...How quaint... Those nasty poor/minority people, ruining our white middle-class graduation rates like that. How dare they... And ALL (or most) of them on "social welfare support whether it is Section 8 housing, Medicaid, SSDI, child care subsidies, food stamps or another program"

The only thing that surprises me in this dialogue is that you would double-down and dig the hole deeper... Oh, wait...I forgot the mindset I was dealing with... No surprise at all...