Gifted Bulletin Board

Welcome to the Gifted Issues Discussion Forum.

We invite you to share your experiences and to post information about advocacy, research and other gifted education issues on this free public discussion forum.
CLICK HERE to Log In. Click here for the Board Rules.

Links


Learn about Davidson Academy Online - for profoundly gifted students living anywhere in the U.S. & Canada.

The Davidson Institute is a national nonprofit dedicated to supporting profoundly gifted students through the following programs:

  • Fellows Scholarship
  • Young Scholars
  • Davidson Academy
  • THINK Summer Institute

  • Subscribe to the Davidson Institute's eNews-Update Newsletter >

    Free Gifted Resources & Guides >

    Who's Online Now
    0 members (), 239 guests, and 35 robots.
    Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
    Newest Members
    streble, DeliciousPizza, prominentdigitiz, parentologyco, Smartlady60
    11,413 Registered Users
    March
    S M T W T F S
    1 2
    3 4 5 6 7 8 9
    10 11 12 13 14 15 16
    17 18 19 20 21 22 23
    24 25 26 27 28 29 30
    31
    Previous Thread
    Next Thread
    Print Thread
    Page 12 of 28 1 2 10 11 12 13 14 27 28
    Joined: Jul 2010
    Posts: 948
    D
    Member
    Offline
    Member
    D
    Joined: Jul 2010
    Posts: 948
    Originally Posted by Bostonian
    Originally Posted by deacongirl
    Yup. I like Harlem Children's Zone. Also Urban Promise in Camden (and other cities).


    Where would the money come from to expand all these programs nationwide?

    Oh, I don't know. Maybe the prison industrial complex? the money spent on appropriate education and social programs, (oh, and perhaps comprehensive sex education and access to birth control) would be less than the cost to society of not investing in ALL children.

    Joined: May 2012
    Posts: 89
    M
    Member
    Offline
    Member
    M
    Joined: May 2012
    Posts: 89
    Originally Posted by DAD22
    Originally Posted by La Texican
    People keep saying everybody has access to a free public library. It would be an extrordinary kid who has the EF skills to do all that and never lose the books. The librarian will give you some slack, but my friend's kid can not use her library card because she has five books somewhere around the house she can't find. Everybody knows a story about some unlikely kid who did use the library successfully, but still. My kids library books stay on a top shelf and I told them not to use a stool to get them, only ask me.
    My kids are 2 and 4, and their library books (which we check out 20 at a time) are kept on the bottom of the bookshelves in their rooms, where they can easily peruse them and make up their minds about which one they want to read. We have never lost a book. We have never significantly damaged a library book. We have repaired books that were damaged when we checked them out. My kids have been taught to take care of books. We don't bend pages. We don't stand on them. We don't throw them. We try not to drop them. My son is certainly not known for a gentle nature, but he manages to live up to our expectations most of the time, and he understands that there will be consequences if he doesn't. (That sounds bad, but I'm talking about taking away a favorite toy for an evening. The threat of losing a toy is much more effective for him than the threat of time out.)

    I really don't think that using the library is a privilege reserved for only the extraordinarily well behaved and organized. I think a family that absolutely can't manage it is the exception. I suppose there is the matter of priorities though.

    I agree that using the library with small children is a risk than many people really can't afford, and I think it's reasonable to suggest that people who are financially struggling probably stop going to the library as frequently after the first time they lose a DVD or book.

    There is no way I would be able to check out the 20-30 books we check out at a time and keeping them in a spot my child has easy access to all day long if replacing them would be impossible for us. So far we've only lost one book, which was easy to replace used in good condition on amazon ($6) but for another family that one $6 book might have kept them out of the library for a long time.

    Joined: Feb 2011
    Posts: 5,181
    Member
    OP Offline
    Member
    Joined: Feb 2011
    Posts: 5,181
    Quote
    People decide to have children or not based based in part on economic viability.

    I know that this is a common defense of why social program spending is "encouraging" this problem. I'm not disagreeing on philosophical terms, just to state that up front. I think that it has been addressed with research, however--

    what that research shows is that if you make family planning methods free/affordable to poor WOMEN, then birth rates plummet in that cohort. More reliable birth control methods which the WOMAN controls... are expensive.

    My apologies for not digging out the original article--

    live-science review of research study on providing free contraception

    Quote
    Between 2006 and 2008, 49 percent of all pregnancies in America were unplanned, according to the CDC's National Survey of Family Growth. About 43 percent of these unintended pregnancies ended in abortion. Meanwhile, a 2011 study in the journal Contraception estimated that unintended births cost U.S. taxpayers about $11 billion a year.

    Quote
    To see if access to free contraception could budge those numbers, Peipert and his colleagues recruited 9,256 women ages 14 to 45 living in the St. Louis area through flyers, doctors and word-of-mouth. They also recruited patients from the city's two abortion clinics. Participants were given the option of using any reversible birth control method, from the birth control pill to a hormonal birth control patch to a long-lasting IUD or hormonal implant. [7 Surprising Facts About the Pill]

    More than half of the women chose IUDs, 17 percent picked hormonal implants (tiny rods placed under the skin that release hormones), and the rest chose pills, patches and other hormonal methods. As a result, the researchers found, both teen births and overall abortion rates plummeted.

    Among women in the free contraceptive program, the teen birth rate was 6.3 per 1,000 women, a huge difference from the national teen birth rate of 34.3 per 1,000 women.

    That is a truly astonishing result. HUGE difference.

    Hormonal methods are the most reliable-- but they are simply out of (financial) reach of many poor women.

    But that is FAR cheaper than welfare for a series of accidental children, medicaid for the mom and those kids, and later, prison for some of them.

    That sounds pretty stark, but it's also realistic.




    Schrödinger's cat walks into a bar. And doesn't.
    Joined: May 2012
    Posts: 89
    M
    Member
    Offline
    Member
    M
    Joined: May 2012
    Posts: 89
    Originally Posted by La Texican
    You're paying for it anyway. Do you want to pay for schools or prisons?
    sappy & oversimplified, but still

    So true.

    Joined: Oct 2011
    Posts: 2,856
    Member
    Offline
    Member
    Joined: Oct 2011
    Posts: 2,856
    Originally Posted by deacongirl
    Oh, I don't know. Maybe the prison industrial complex? the money spent on appropriate education and social programs, (oh, and perhaps comprehensive sex education and access to birth control) would be less than the cost to society of not investing in ALL children.

    Indeed. That's why I always find it so shockingly dumbfounding that the same people who so readily cast blame on people for circumstances they're totally unequipped to understand are the same people who are often arguing that government should be run as a business.

    YES! Run it as a business, please! History has demonstrated that humans are a resource which, if you invest properly, pay off big!

    The cost to incarcerate one prisoner in CA, as of 2008-2009, was $47k. That was roughly the median household income at the time. Factor in government subsistence now required by any dependents left behind, and the total cost to society goes even higher.

    http://www.lao.ca.gov/laoapp/laomenus/sections/crim_justice/6_cj_inmatecost.aspx?catid=3

    Joined: Oct 2011
    Posts: 2,856
    Member
    Offline
    Member
    Joined: Oct 2011
    Posts: 2,856
    Originally Posted by Bostonian
    Originally Posted by deacongirl
    Yup. I like Harlem Children's Zone. Also Urban Promise in Camden (and other cities).
    If you provide a suite of social services so that the children of unwed, uneducated single mothers are well taken care of, this may send a message to young women and men to have children that they themselves are not willing or able to care for.

    Slippery slope fallacy.

    Joined: Jul 2010
    Posts: 1,777
    Member
    Offline
    Member
    Joined: Jul 2010
    Posts: 1,777
    It's usually not just one book. My friend's kid lost her privledges because she lost five books. That's $30 even at the thrifty rate. And she's a reader. The kid reads books. But, for now she has lost her access to the library. What I'm describing is the grey area in between.
    Here, people work. They are employed (oilfield). They are not well educated and many have large families starting as teenagers. Everybody has food in their belly and there's no homeless children. Two years ago less than half of the kids passed the math standards test for the year. They raised it to over 90% by afterschool tutoring at the school. That's probably waaay TMI, but these articles always leave it out that not everybody is going to college, or even thinks much of it. If the system is getting easier to "game" maybe it's getting better at sorting the people who want an education from those who don't. And from what everybody says there's not enough seats in the good schools for people who want theid kids to have a good education. Why not try to make the schools fit the peoples needs in stead of trying to make the people fit one idea of "a good education".
    If a kid lives in the ghetto you need to make his school a safe haven and teach basic literacy. If a kid lives in the oilfield you need to teach him votech in case he doesn't finish school he has something to fall back on. If too many people are hyperfocused on gaming the system it's because you need to build more good schools in those neighborhoods.


    Youth lives by personality, age lives by calculation. -- Aristotle on a calendar
    Joined: Nov 2012
    Posts: 2,513
    A
    Member
    Offline
    Member
    A
    Joined: Nov 2012
    Posts: 2,513
    Originally Posted by Bostonian
    People decide to have children or not based based in part on economic viability. That viability should be based on their earnings, not the taxpayer's.

    You get no argument from me that, in an ideal world, life would be incentive compatible. I would be considered rather Draconian by many with respect to my views on enabling adults' dependent behaviour. But when the recipient is a child external to the decision-making process, I see no benefit to the taxpayer of having a child go hungry, be exposed to violence, or become unemployable. That child is an innocent bystander to a flawed decision making process. Why should his lot in life be cast in stone because of his parents' failures? Social security, disability, and prison are economically more costly than ECE for at-risk children.

    I'm not aware of comparable US figures, but from a consulting engagement with Correctional Service Canada, I know annual costs of federal incarceration run over $105k for men, and upwards of $120k for females. I would rather see lower crime rates, greater labour force participation, and tax remittances by successful program graduates. That makes good economic and ethical sense when viewed as a lifecycle decision.

    Sadly, politicians are elected on a much shorter term, and their success is determined by pandering to myopic interests on all ends of the political spectrum.

    Last edited by aquinas; 05/01/13 10:41 AM.

    What is to give light must endure burning.
    Joined: Feb 2011
    Posts: 5,181
    Member
    OP Offline
    Member
    Joined: Feb 2011
    Posts: 5,181
    The reason that I think that the study I mentioned above is so important here isn't just the way that it addresses birth rates in particular.

    I think (personally) that it can also be extended to suggest that if you give people without financial means the TOOLS to do so, they don't "make bad choices." Not when they have real options to make better ones. The thing is that "enroll in this program" doesn't present a real choice to a parent who NEEDS to work those hours.





    Schrödinger's cat walks into a bar. And doesn't.
    Joined: Jul 2010
    Posts: 1,777
    Member
    Offline
    Member
    Joined: Jul 2010
    Posts: 1,777
    If you're talking about taxes and social services you're talking about much more than just the school system.


    Youth lives by personality, age lives by calculation. -- Aristotle on a calendar
    Page 12 of 28 1 2 10 11 12 13 14 27 28

    Moderated by  M-Moderator 

    Link Copied to Clipboard
    Recent Posts
    Testing with accommodations
    by aeh - 03/27/24 01:58 PM
    Quotations that resonate with gifted people
    by indigo - 03/27/24 12:38 PM
    New, and you'd think I'd have a clue...
    by astronomama - 03/24/24 06:01 AM
    For those interested in astronomy, eclipses...
    by indigo - 03/23/24 06:11 PM
    Son 2e, wide discrepancy between CogAT-Terranova
    by astronomama - 03/23/24 07:21 AM
    Powered by UBB.threads™ PHP Forum Software 7.7.5