Comment by jmm | Hacker News Reader

Comment by jmm | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

Ha. The pickle here is that we (the government, the bleeding hearts, those capable of compassion) have to acknowledge that these kids were dealt a pretty bad hand, and that they are, after all, still kids. So we owe them a fair shot and some patience -- it's not acceptable to give up on them as products of the system. Because in one way or another we're part of the system. And they're kids.

My sister participated in the New York Teaching Fellows program (similar to TFA) and worked in Spanish Harlem and her experience was much the same as the author's. So I'm not saying the current situation and the current programs are ideal or well managed, but there are interesting hope-inducing projects and people out there.

p.s. Go watch season 4 of The Wire and see if it tugs at your heartstrings a bit. It also paints a good picture of how screwed up the school system itself is in poor urban communities. Not to mention how pedogogical innovation is treated in the academic setting...

p.p.s. If you're curious about the role of academic philanthropy and the Broad Foundation which the author mentions, have a read: http://dissentmagazine.org/article/?article=3781 . I haven't read a counterpoint to that piece yet, so I'm not sure how well the criticisms stand up.

If some people paid by other people want me to sit and listen to them all day and to think about what they want me to think about then it isn't "giving up on me" to let me go and do something else if I would prefer to do so.

It's simply acknowledging my status as a human being.

So, pray tell, what would you do as a troublesome young bloke hanging out in Harlem or Kansas City today?

I'll submit that some aspect of keeping kids in school is an attempt to keep those kids out of small trouble now and big trouble later. Paternalistic laws/rules very often rub the most responsible members of society the wrong way when they apply them to themselves. Moreover, applying rules for children to adults will also push your intuitions in a certain way.

Believing in a kid's potential to be a productive member of society, I'd argue, is an even more edifying way of acknowledging their status as a human being. Your version when applied to poor city kids is basically, "sure, it's cool if you want to go become a vandal/drug dealer/future inmate; whatever."

Also, you're giving kids too much credit. Kids will almost always maximize short term payoff at the expense of long term success (hyperbolic discounting?). And good parenting is about balancing those inclinations. In the absence of good parenting, schools can pick up some of the slack.

> "it's not acceptable to give up on them as products of the system."

But what about moving them to an alternate system that addresses their basic, fundamental issues with school and education?

It seems backwards to allow the minority to prevent learning for the majority. It also seems backwards to address these kids' issues in the same way as kids ready to learn.

Up to what age do you consider them "just kids"?

Just because the line is fuzzy doesn't mean there isn't one.

(I'm not sure if you're trying to weaken my argument by challenging the idea of childhood altogether (which would be weird), or if you're just curious. If it's the former, we're probably not going to have a productive discussion. If it's the latter, I'm open to suggestions, though it probably deserves the attention of an educational psychologist or someone like that.)

Its the later (if I was challenging your argument, I would have stated my reasons). I think their is a huge difference in strategies / reason between the 12 and under set and the 13+ set. The article seemed like it was talking about 12 and under, but I wasn't really sure what your use of "kid" referred too.

Came here just to chime in about Season 4 of The Wire. For those who haven't seen it, a large portion of it focuses on a new school initiative where disruptive students are removed from their classes and isolated in a smaller, more focused setting to work out their issues (if at all possible). The controversy is the perception it gives of putting the troubled kids through a lesser education, which is ironic considering the sort of education they could get would be qualitatively different and better for them overall.

Just proves "what's old is new again" in education. With all the new rules and zero-tolerance policies your, your options as a teacher are to either let the kid continue or have him kicked out of school permanently. Gone are the days of detention, sitting in the VP's office, or student-parent-teacher meetings.

The breakdown of the family is what I consider the largest contributor to failing students. It's already hard enough to work and come home to do more work. Add in the guidance a kid needs and you are too tired to provide. You have a good chance that your kid is being raised by their friends and not you. Even if most of your kids friends are good it only takes one to spoil them all.

> The pickle here is that we (the government, the bleeding hearts, those capable of compassion)

Cute - anyone who disagrees with you is incapable of compassion....

It doesn't matter what your intent is or how good a person you are. The system, which is largely driven by folks like you, is largely a disaster, and an expensive one at that.

That's on you.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com