High school drop-out rate in major US cities at nearly 50 percent
RolandTD20Kdrummer
Posts: 13,066
RU effing kidding me?
This can't be right...
http://www.inteldaily.com/?c=144&a=5861
"A report released Tuesday by an educational advocacy group founded by retired general and former Bush administration Secretary of State Colin Powell finds that almost half of all public high school students in the US’ fifty largest cities fail to graduate.
The report states that only 52 percent of public high school students in these cities graduate after four years, while the national average is 70 percent. Some 1.2 million public high school students drop out every year, according to researchers."
This can't be right...
http://www.inteldaily.com/?c=144&a=5861
"A report released Tuesday by an educational advocacy group founded by retired general and former Bush administration Secretary of State Colin Powell finds that almost half of all public high school students in the US’ fifty largest cities fail to graduate.
The report states that only 52 percent of public high school students in these cities graduate after four years, while the national average is 70 percent. Some 1.2 million public high school students drop out every year, according to researchers."
Progress is not made by everyone joining some new fad,
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
http://i36.tinypic.com/66j31x.jpg
(\__/)
( o.O)
(")_(")
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
http://i36.tinypic.com/66j31x.jpg
(\__/)
( o.O)
(")_(")
Post edited by Unknown User on
0
Comments
but i then i wouldn't have my job, because i had to go to college to get interviewed for that, and you can't get interviewed by colleges without graduating from high school.
fuck.
i'm not about to get into a class warfare debate. being poor sucks. thats why they call it being poor. learn some personal responsibility.
if 25% are dropping out, it's a clear and present danger to our countries future security. Where's the government at? send in the Marines, oh wait, they are full of drop outs, and deployed....jk, actually a lot of educated enlisted in the Army, and I'm sure the same for the other services. but really, how can this be even remotely true and not have the full attention of our government, or the people of our country at leasst?
Stop by:
http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=14678777351&ref=mf
Mihi cura futuri.
The elements they speak to me.
http://espn.go.com/espnradiostations/NewYork1050/gallery/35218855.html
so cute they are
The rich person has a choice. To help out or ignore and help themselves.. its all point of view. Chances are if your parents had money, they used it to influence you because they love you.. Thats what all of this is about. Love.. You can give all you want, but if you are only giving to make yourself feel better then chances are what you are giving is not effective.. a lot of people aren't that fortunate.
We're all the way we are because of influence.. a little genetics combined mostly with influence.
and they're probably selling it to the rich kids too.
The difference is, as some people have mentioned, there are different values and different examples that are demonstrated b/t classes. I'm not saying that poor people don't want to have education and don't value it, but when you have a lot more people who drop out of high school having an influence on kids and sometimes those kids don't have the best role models (parents); you're bound to have negative social impacts. Regardless of money, children need positive role models and active parents from day one. My guess is you are more likely not to have this in the inner city.
Those two statements aren't saying the same thing.
...are those who've helped us.
Right 'round the corner could be bigger than ourselves.
Urban areas in the United States are simply a world apart from what people living elsewhere remotely imagine.
If I opened it now would you not understand?
Instead of trying to force kids into a room, why don't you actually try to give them a reason to be there in the first place? If someone posted a link here reporting that 50% of prison inmates attempted to escape, would you be shocked about that?
No, i wouldn't be shocked.
But if i posted links explaining that public schooling is deliberately engineered to produce under-achieving button pushers, and further, that the educational process is intentionally made obtuse, unapplied, and boring so as to discourage real comprehension or critical thinking, or even that school "education" programs are designed to strip kids of any moral compass and make them the depraved beasts they are becoming, all while purposely breaking up the family unit and placing children under the sole indoctrination of the state, I'm pretty sure i would be scoffed at.
If I opened it now would you not understand?
You certainly would be scoffed at and, partly for good reason. Public schooling is not "deliberately engineered" to do the above. It simply does the above, for better or for worse, because of the nature of its mandate -- to provide knowledge to all with accountability to none.
The primary reason that public schooling (and most schooling, for that matter) doesn't work very well is because it attempts to force thoughts into people's brains. That's an incredibly inefficient and largely foolhardy process. Furthermore, public education makes significant investments where no return is possible.
If the public education system would concern itself not with those without knowledge, but rather those who seek knowledge, the returns would be staggering.
naděje umírá poslední
disagree.
multiple class rooms & teachers for different subjects was deliberately\intentionaly introduced with the intended result being the training of a young workforce to accept and be psychologicaly prepared for working in different stations of an assembly line and changing job functions on a schedule.
the very intention behind public schooling in the first place was to seperate the child from his parents, or his parents choice of schooling, and to place the child at the sole discretion of the state (and ultimately those forces which extend their influence upon the state educational system, books, and methodologies) ...
more controversial still, the intention behind "sex education", and "drug education" etc, was not in truth to help protect kids from sex and drugs, but to expose and desensitize them to the subjects, overexposing them at critical periods in psychological development, to the point that their familiarity with such concepts and repeated focus on such actions ultimately led to their participation in and involvement with such activities.
Those are some of the positions i would put forth,
and they are not my original intellectual property, but that of those of whom i have encountered in my own "studies".
Quotes:
"It is frequently the family that infects the child with extreme nationalism. The school should therefore use the means described earlier to combat family attitudes that favor jingoism." -- UNESCO (United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization), Towards World Understanding, 1947, P 58
"Every child in America entering school at the age of five is mentally ill because he comes to school with certain allegiances to our Founding Fathers, toward our elected officials, toward his parents, toward a belief in a supernatural being, and toward the sovereignty of this nation as a separate entity. It's up to you as teachers to make all these sick children well - by creating the international child of the future." -- Chester M Pierce, 1973, Professor of Psychiatry and Education at Harvard University, Denver Education Conference
"The new view is that the higher and more obligatory relation is to society rather than to the family; the family goes back to the age of savagery while the state belongs to the age of civilization. The modern individual is a world citizen, served by the world, and home interests can no longer be supreme." -- Arthur Calhoun, Social History of the American Family, 1919
Here is a song they used to make us sing repeatedly in my "Academicaly Gifted" classes in 5th and 6th grade:
"World Citizen"
You can't make this stuff up man.
If I opened it now would you not understand?
Then your school system is fucked up. I agree, parents have a permanent teaching job. But if a school can't teach kids about birth control, STDs, pregancny... what can it do? It's not like it's a hard task, you know. We had our first sex ed classes when we were 11. We were taught about the reproductive organs, STDs, birth control... and every year after that more elaborate. There's not a kid I went to school with who doesn't know all these things. They had doctors and even aids patients come talk to us.
But if people keep seeing sex as a taboo, kids will indeed believe fucked up things.
edit: Ah, this is a different thread
Anyway, I still think schools can teach children a lot, more than what parents can teach them, or at least different things.
naděje umírá poslední
This is silly. Scheduled education dates back at least to the Romans and likely back even further in ancient Egypt and China. And specialized education wherein teachers knowledgeable in a given topic apprenticing students definitely dates back to ancient Egypt.
:rolleyes:
The fact that you think there was a singular "intention" behind public schooling in the first place is laughable. There are many reasons we have public schools. Certainly states in many cases believed that they would be a better educator than parents. In some cases they were right (though of course that doesn't excuse the fact). However, public schools exist for a myriad of reasons.
Hehe...sex education and drug education exist simply because those in charge of curriculum believed it to be necessary to educate children on their personal views regarding sex and drugs. You make it sound as if there is some singular conspiracy behind these things when really all that is behind these things are misguided good intentions, a lot of stupidity, and a little bit of knowledge.
No, you can't make that stuff up, since it is fact. However, the conspiratorial conclusions you are somehow drawing from these facts are largely made up.
There is no single body in charge of world-wide, country-wide, or even state-wide education. There are many bodies in charge of those things and many have contradictory purposes and goals. Certainly any time you allow a group to influence the compulsory educational process of a child, you're going to get the biases and preferences of that body translated onto the education of children without regard to relevance, value, or good sense. Throughout American history, you've had the constant influence of patriots, corporatists, statists, communists, capitalists, faithists and numerous other interest groups dictating portions of the curricula. This is not some vast conspiracy. This is simply the natural effect of a system of compulsory education dictated by popular will as opposed to individual choice.
America simply needs to wake up and realize that you cannot educate everyone. You can only babysit nearly everyone, or you can educate those prepared and eager to learn. It is undeniably in the best interests of the vast majority of society's members to ensure that the other members of a free society, both young and old, have access to the means of learning. It is not, however, in the best interests of most members of society to have dogma and someone else's idea of good culture shoved down their throat.
Education is not the accumulation of facts. Rather, education is the excercise of the means of acquiring and applying facts. Schools of all types would be wise to take that to heart.
if kids respected sex as something sacred, and not just a fun thing to do, we would be better off for it.
I'm not sure who or what is to blame for that change in belief structure. I do think that shoving sex down kids throats all day long from, as you said age 11 onwards in ever increasing velocity, is possibly more detrimental than it is helpful.
Why even have kids focused on sex at age 11?
I'm just playing devil's advocate here.
If I opened it now would you not understand?
It's not like we had sex ed every day, non-stop
When we were eleven it was just part of biology class. And later on too, except you'd have special sex or aids or teen pregnacny awareness days and you'd get to put a condom on a dildo... you know... the fun things
I mean what do these kids learn in biology?
naděje umírá poslední
i agree largely with this section of your response.
My only argument would be that where you assert that "this is simply the natural effect of a system of compulsory education dictated by popular will" and not some "vast conspiracy" you acknowledge the obvious reality that certain groups have held influence over the educational process while then dismissing any such interpretation of such influence as "conpsiratorial" on the grounds that this is just how life goes. This is what i don't understand about people who deny any one asserting malfeasance by those with influence as being "conspiracy theorists". You have acknowledged that it is common place for groups to exert influence throughout history. (i guess that is a big "duh"), so why is it so hard to accept that one group (the group with lots of money, power, and influence) may have been more successful over the years at maintaining said influence by institutionalizing their intentions (with grants, and formation of policy institutions, and private publishing houses that print books, and educational training seminars etc etc etc) ...
According to Aaron Russo, Nick Rockefeller straight up told him that his family (Rockefellers, through The Rockefeller Foundation) were largley responsible for the feminist movement and women's suffrage, for the specificaly intended purposes of
a. breaking up the family
b. gaining taxation authority over the other 50% of humanity in America
This has nothing to do with education, but is an example of how a group can have a deliberately intended massive influence on the shape of history. This influence was done for purposes very much in contrast with those that are stated by the proponents of the movement -- the feminists think they are just getting the right to vote and equal status; the actual progenitors of the movement however intended much more "sinister" goals.
How is this (or any of several other "conspiracies", like the creation of the Federal Reserve) any different from the influence of certain ill intentioned (imho) groups that i (and others) are alleging in a case like this (education)?
And by the way, my only other comment at this point is that, regardless of where the concept scheduled learning originated, it is NOT something that exisisted in the single room schoolhouse of early American history. It was coopted and brought in to place here by (as the assertion goes) those with motives very different from what the general public might be aware.
If I opened it now would you not understand?
Huh? Sex is "a fun thing to do". How in the world is it "sacred"?
this is definitely accurate... and i would not be surprised if it was even worse then that...
That's the thing. There is misfeasance and then there is malfeasance. Most of the faults of the education system arise from simple misfeasance.
This is really the crazy logic I'm talking about. Do you think that all it takes to begin such a massive movement is to plant the seeds in the educational system? That's ridiculous. Schools can barely teach people basic facts, let alone indoctrinate people into specific ideologies. What evidence do you have that the above happened, other than someone's word?
In order to bring about mass cultural swings, the seeds have to already be planted in people's minds in order for them to accept them in practice via education. Women's suffrage didn't begin via the schools. It began via an environment that was prepared to support women in independent modalities on a broad scale. Furthermore, suffrage itself did little to "break up the family". What is breaking up the American family is the natural erosion of the marriage contract in a time and place where that contract is largely unnecessary.