Brookings Institute - State of Metropolitan America

[TheArtist]

B..bu..but, I thoght it takes a village to raise a child.  I posit this every few months, and it's always shot down with some idea that we don't spend enough money on education.  We spend plenty, it's the parents who don't give a smile that's the problem.  Kudos on staying involved.  I credit that for the success of my daughters and they are from a "broken home".

I believe everyone knows that "its the parents" DUH!  

But if thats where you want to tackle the issue.... Whats your solution?

How you gonna force sh@tty parents to be good ones? This is gonna be interesting, I want to hear this.

IMO ya cant force parents to do anything.  The kids however, are essentially a captive audience.  Thats where we can make changes. BUT those kids from homes with sh@tty parents are gonna need different things than those kids who have good parents.  More money itself isnt going to fix anything, but something has to be different and change for these kids and some extra effort,to counter the sh@ty parenting, is going to have to happen.

[YoungTulsan]

Enlighten us on the good schools.  (I am not saying they are all bad, I just want the names of "the good ones"

Any school in the system is going to have Advanced Placement classes where the student's who excel (and have supportive involved households) will get quality education.  If you are worried about your student's education being "dragged down" by underachievers, this isn't really the case.  The programs are in place to support the kids and parents who actually try.

[Cats Cats Cats]

Here is the list that was posted

Lee, Eliot, Mayo - magnet, Thoreau-magnet , Carver-magnet , Booker T, Edison-magnet

You don't have to apply to get into Jenks or some of the other schools around Tulsa.

[Rico]

we vs us> >    "It's an interesting description because it describes a city still caught in a "white flight" dynamic . . ."

The people who assume TPS is nothing but bad schools is a prime example of "white flight" going strong here.  People judge the school system less on the opportunity to receive a good education and more on the fear of their kids being in the same school as minorities.   This is also an unspoken prejudice when we talk about the "good parts" of town, i.e. a new poster to this forum says he is looking for a nice place to live, and is immediately told which parts of town NOT to go near.

You two have hit exactly the point that is a thorn in my side.

This phenomenon? referred to as "white flight" is more prevelant in Tulsa now than in the 70's.
Not since living in the south have I been around such acceptable racism as exist in Tulsa at present.
Of course it is all spoken in code i.e. (not such a nice part of town, etc) and not said outright like in the days past but it is still recognized. Add this to the fact that many claim to be such devoted Christians, and you have a recipe that is hard for me to swallow.

I am ashamed of some of the things that are done by the likes of Inhoffe. He really gives this Town a backward representation.

Seems like we are always first or second in line to proffer an attitude that winds up being looked at as though it is 1955.
i.e. "the current abortion fiasco." just my opinion.

[YoungTulsan]

Here is the list that was posted

Lee, Eliot, Mayo - magnet, Thoreau-magnet , Carver-magnet , Booker T, Edison-magnet

You don't have to apply to get into Jenks or some of the other schools around Tulsa.

I've been out of TPS for 10 years now, so I'm not sure on this, but do all of those magnet schools now require you to apply even if you live near them?  I'm pretty sure you still go to Edison if you live in the vicinity, just the additional ability to transfer from further regions exists on an applicant basis.  Am I incorrect?

[Cats Cats Cats]

I've been out of TPS for 10 years now, so I'm not sure on this, but do all of those magnet schools now require you to apply even if you live near them?  I'm pretty sure you still go to Edison if you live in the vicinity, just the additional ability to transfer from further regions exists on an applicant basis.  Am I incorrect?

I think you might still have to apply for the "magnet" program.  I am not sure what the rules are exactly.  Somebody tell us that knows what they are talking about.

[we vs us]

I believe everyone knows that "its the parents" DUH!  

But if thats where you want to tackle the issue.... Whats your solution?

How you gonna force sh@tty parents to be good ones? This is gonna be interesting, I want to hear this.

IMO ya cant force parents to do anything.  The kids however, are essentially a captive audience.  Thats where we can make changes. BUT those kids from homes with sh@tty parents are gonna need different things than those kids who have good parents.  More money itself isnt going to fix anything, but something has to be different and change for these kids and some extra effort,to counter the sh@ty parenting, is going to have to happen.

Excellent, Artist.  You're right on.  Shitty parenting always was and always will be with us, but our perception that things are getting worse just reinforces the temptation to withhold resources from people who are "willfully" shitty.  The whole "it takes a village" idea is about finding ways for the village to neutralize the effects of shitty parenting, because if no one intervenes, those kids become shittily-parented adults who in turn affect the village itself.   

[custosnox]

I believe everyone knows that "its the parents" DUH!  

But if thats where you want to tackle the issue.... Whats your solution?

How you gonna force sh@tty parents to be good ones? This is gonna be interesting, I want to hear this.

IMO ya cant force parents to do anything.  The kids however, are essentially a captive audience.  Thats where we can make changes. BUT those kids from homes with sh@tty parents are gonna need different things than those kids who have good parents.  More money itself isnt going to fix anything, but something has to be different and change for these kids and some extra effort,to counter the sh@ty parenting, is going to have to happen.

The kids are not as captive as you might think.  How do you get a child to behave in class?  In the past if a child did not behave, and your basic punishments did not work then you would tell them that you were calling their parents and they would straighten up real fast because the parent would show up and there would be hell to pay for the kid.  Now if it gets to that point, the kid will look at the administrator and say "they don't care" and be right.  With the schools like jenks, BA, Union and such the parents move there with the intention of having their kids in better schools, thus having the desire to be more involved.  As far as forcing them to do something, you really can't, but they can be made more accountable.  What ever happened to the days of fining parents when a kid was truant from school too much?

I think you might still have to apply for the "magnet" program.  I am not sure what the rules are exactly.  Somebody tell us that knows what they are talking about.

My oldest daughter goes to Thoreau and the process is by application.  There is also a Lottery involved at Thoreau that I do not believed is involved at the others.  The application was filled out by the staff members of her elementry school and signed by me, with my prefered school choices (as in, what my daughter told me what to choose) put in by order of preferance.  My middle daughter and my son apparantly got some kind of invitation for Dove Science academy for next year, not real sure what that is about.  While I am very involved with my kids and their school, my ex tries to hedge me out as much as possible (one of those out of spite stupidity things), so getting some of that information out of her is like prying boulders loose with a twig.

[custosnox]

Excellent, Artist.  You're right on.  Shitty parenting always was and always will be with us, but our perception that things are getting worse just reinforces the temptation to withhold resources from people who are "willfully" shitty.  The whole "it takes a village" idea is about finding ways for the village to neutralize the effects of shitty parenting, because if no one intervenes, those kids become shittily-parented adults who in turn affect the village itself.   

Actually, when I think of "it takes a village" it reminds me of someone I knew from Mozambique (yes, I know, I just butchered the spelling of that).  He was telling me about how it really does take a village there to raise a child.  But it wasn't so much about the parent not taking responsibility, but as everyone taking an active part in the raising of all children in the village as a whole.  It was more of a statement of community then about shifting responsibilty

[azbadpuppy]

When Oklahoma public schools start focusing on, and spending as much money on education as they do on sports, then maybe the school and their teachers will cease to be among the lowest funded and paid in the nation.

Sorry, but it is true that more money spent on education (teacher salaries being a HUGE part) will produce better results. States with the highest property taxes percentages going towards public schools typically also have the best overall public school systems- i.e. the Northeast- CT, MA, NY, NJ

When my family moved to Connecticut from Tulsa when I was in high school, I felt like I was about a full year behind in many subject areas (English, Math, Social Studies) compared to other CT Freshmen- and I went to Jenks which is for some reason always considered to be one of the best schools in Oklahoma. I remember the sports coaches teaching regular classes at Jenks. That is something I never saw in CT. I think one of the biggest differences between the two systems is the quality of the educators. You get what you pay for!

[Conan71]

Excellent, Artist.  You're right on.  Shitty parenting always was and always will be with us, but our perception that things are getting worse just reinforces the temptation to withhold resources from people who are "willfully" shitty.  The whole "it takes a village" idea is about finding ways for the village to neutralize the effects of shitty parenting, because if no one intervenes, those kids become shittily-parented adults who in turn affect the village itself.   

You simply cannot raise someone else's child for them unless they give them up to "the system".  There was a story on CBS Evening Snooze last night about a program in Chicago and other larger cities in which parents can temporarily give custody of their kids to foster homes while they look for work or focus on job training.  The story was a follow up from a year ago on inner-city children of recently laid off workers and checking back to see where they were today.  Two sisters had gone from riding the ell's in Chicago all night with their parents, since they had no home, to living with a foster family who is ensuring they are getting everything they need while their parents get back on their feet.

As much as revisionists want to hide behind separation of church and state as a means to dumb down religion & spirituality in America, this country was founded by strong families and religious people- mostly of the Christian faith. 

A big problem, as I see it, is focus in families changing from spiritual-based to secular with a strong faith that government holds the solution for every problem, including the mistaken notion that school systems exist to raise their kids.  A hundred years ago, if someone was down on their luck, they turned to their church or temple community for help until they could get back on their feet.  If children were orphaned, they were put in a church-run orphanage.  Does everyone need to go to church to succeed?  Absolutely not.  Do people need to be Christians to observe less ego-centric lives and teach their children the same?  Absolutely not.  However, this "me first" mentality which has grown over the last century has no place in creating and raising a family. 

Our government aids and abets chronic under-achievers with social programs which do nothing but mire families in mediocrity, stuff them in crime-ridden ghettos from which they cannot escape, and reward people for adding to the misery of society.  People don't want to take responsibility for their own actions and they are not forced to.  As much as open display of religion is derided these days, principles of Judaism, Christianity, Buddhism, Universalist Unitarianism, etc. are all important to family unity and the success of all members of the family. 

No, I'm not suggesting that the government mandate religion for every family.  What I'm saying is this: You cannot force true change on people who don't want it.  They have to become disgusted enough of their own circumstances to want to change on their own and realize that the best solution for broken families isn't the government.

As far as what any of you can do, there are secular organizations out there where people can volunteer and make a difference in young people's lives who do not have the proper parental focus in their life like Big Brothers & Sisters.  If you are a church member you can volunteer through church outreach programs, become a volunteer teacher at any number of schools, volunteer through YMCA or YWCA programs, etc.  Can it change all under-performing children?  Probably not.  Can you reach one or a few children this way and make a difference? Yep.

Sorry to sound all preachy, but this issue comes up every few months and the question is always asked about what can be changed.  There's no massive government solution to societal ills.  Society has to cure itself and the best cure is based in spiritual principles regarding the family.

[custosnox]

Sorry to sound all preachy, but this issue comes up every few months and the question is always asked about what can be changed.  There's no massive government solution to societal ills.  Society has to cure itself and the best cure is based in spiritual principles regarding the family.

I don't think that because you believe there is a God, or that someone else believes that there is a Buddha, should dictate the choices of my children.  With that being said, "spiritual" principles can be found in places outside of religion.  Philisophical lessons can accomplish teaching the children proper behavior without giving the impression of a choice of one believe, or lack of believe, over another.  Society has moved away from it's strong christian roots because it has evolved to something more.  The basic principle of freedom of religion remains the heart of it though.  I think it will take time for the country as a whole to find it's place on this matter and create a stopgap between the the differance in religions and the lack of principles.  Those principles that should be passed on to our children transend all racial, religious and social barriers.

I do agree with azbadpuppy that we need to rework our system to allow for a better financial system for our schools.  While we will never have enough to make up for poor parenting, lack of funding can trully hurt education.  We also need to raise the standards at which we hold the students.  Give them more to strive for, and make sure they know can reach it if they try.  It seems to me that the educational standards of the public school for the country are too low, and those of Oklahoma even lower, which reflect themselves on the underfunded Tulsa Public Schools.

[Conan71]

I don't think that because you believe there is a God, or that someone else believes that there is a Buddha, should dictate the choices of my children.  With that being said, "spiritual" principles can be found in places outside of religion.  Philisophical lessons can accomplish teaching the children proper behavior without giving the impression of a choice of one believe, or lack of believe, over another.  Society has moved away from it's strong christian roots because it has evolved to something more.  The basic principle of freedom of religion remains the heart of it though.  I think it will take time for the country as a whole to find it's place on this matter and create a stopgap between the the differance in religions and the lack of principles.  Those principles that should be passed on to our children transend all racial, religious and social barriers.

I do agree with azbadpuppy that we need to rework our system to allow for a better financial system for our schools.  While we will never have enough to make up for poor parenting, lack of funding can trully hurt education.  We also need to raise the standards at which we hold the students.  Give them more to strive for, and make sure they know can reach it if they try.  It seems to me that the educational standards of the public school for the country are too low, and those of Oklahoma even lower, which reflect themselves on the underfunded Tulsa Public Schools.

True spirituality dictates nothing to others and I'm not suggesting that it needs to be forced on anyone.  I'm simply saying it's where the real solutions are, not government dependence.  Spirituality is an individual walk and what works for me could possibly get you arrested in 11 states and 30 countries.  Your statement I emboldened though, that's kind of what I'm trying to convey.

I'm simply pointing out that solutions for the family aren't going to be found in government.  They are going to be in the basic tenets of any major observed religion.  I've never really seen the corollary between higher teacher salaries translating to better outcomes, especially in more poverty-stricken areas.  Teachers can only do so much in the process if apathy abounds at home.

[custosnox]

True spirituality dictates nothing to others and I'm not suggesting that it needs to be forced on anyone.  I'm simply saying it's where the real solutions are, not government dependence.  Spirituality is an individual walk and what works for me could possibly get you arrested in 11 states and 30 countries.  Your statement I emboldened though, that's kind of what I'm trying to convey.

I'm simply pointing out that solutions for the family aren't going to be found in government.  They are going to be in the basic tenets of any major observed religion.  I've never really seen the corollary between higher teacher salaries translating to better outcomes, especially in more poverty-stricken areas.  Teachers can only do so much in the process if apathy abounds at home.

I didn't think you were suggesting anything like that, I just wanted to make a point to clarify that what you are getting at comes from places other then a strictly religious tenat.  I also have a hard time assigning spirituality to it since this can also be terminology to suggest religion.  But yes, the solution comes back to bringing a better sense of principles and disaplines back to our teachings, in and out of the home. 

As you say, the apathy within the homes is crippling us in so many ways, not just our schools.  While the government is not the end all be all to the answer, I think accountability should rest on the shoulders of the parents as well as the government, and should be a two way check.  Make the parents more accountable for the actions of their children, make the government more accountable for the actions that effect our children.  As far as teachers increased saleries creating or not creating a better outcome, at the very least these civil servants deserve more then the paupers salery they recieve here.  At best, it will encourage the better teachers to come here, or stay here instead of going to other areas where their skills will bring them a higher pay and maybe even motivate them to give just that little bit more that might make a differance. 

[we vs us]

Well, just so we're clear, I'm not advocating any classic big government takeovers of anything or anyone.  I'm just agreeing with Artist that we can't change the individual, but that we still have to make sure our education (and healthcare, and welfare) systems run when the input isn't what we either expect or desire.  In my opinion, a lot of folks in modern America see undesirable input and think it's a reason to take those systems down entirely.  I think there's a lot of baby-with-the-bathwater reasoning there and I don't support it. 

This is also a good opportunity for me to post this NYT op-ed. It's a critique of an upcoming book that compares marriage and abortion rates in Red and Blue states . . . and which brings out a whole host of instructive attitudes towards what a successful modern American family looks like: 

" . . . The intact two-parent family has been in eclipse for decades now: last week, the Pew Research Center reported that in 2008, 41 percent of American births occurred outside of marriage, the highest figure yet recorded. And from divorce rates to teen births, nearly every indicator of family life now varies dramatically by education, race, geography and income.

In a rare convergence, conservatives and liberals basically agree on how this happened. First, the sexual revolution overturned the old order of single-earner households, early marriages, and strong stigmas against divorce and unwed motherhood. In its aftermath, the professional classes found a new equilibrium. Today, couples with college and (especially) graduate degrees tend to cohabit early and marry late, delaying childbirth and raising smaller families than their parents, while enjoying low divorce rates and bearing relatively few children out of wedlock.

For the rest of the country, this comfortable equilibrium remains out of reach. In the underclass (black, white and Hispanic alike), intact families are now an endangered species. For middle America, the ideal of the two-parent family endures, but the reality is much more chaotic: early marriages coexist with frequent divorces, and the out-of-wedlock birth rate keeps inching upward.

When it comes to drawing lessons from this story, though, the agreement between liberals and conservatives ends. The right tends to emphasize what's been lost, arguing that most Americans — especially the poor and working-class — would benefit from a stronger link between sex, marriage and procreation. The left argues that the revolution just hasn't been completed yet: it's the right-wing backlash against abortion, contraception and sex education that's preventing downscale Americans from attaining the new upper-middle-class stability, and reaping its social and economic benefits.

This is one of the themes of "Red Families v. Blue Families," a provocative new book by two law professors, Naomi Cahn and June Carbone. The authors depict a culturally conservative "red America" that's stuck trying to sustain an outdated social model. By insisting (unrealistically) on chastity before marriage, Cahn and Carbone argue, social conservatives guarantee that their children will get pregnant early and often (see Palin, Bristol), leading to teen childbirth, shotgun marriages and high divorce rates."

Sorry to quote so widely (fotd much?) but it builds to the crucial point . . . that at least in this study of particular family indicators, casting backwards to what used to work is almost certainly not the best solution now.  We've gone through enough social dislocation and change that it's more of a hindrance than a help to try to wrench us back to the older traditions (whatever those may be). 

Because social change here moves at a relatively slower pace, Tulsans really rely on the old days for their cultural cues.  Memory is amazingly long here.  This is one of the key impediments to change (cf. the sound and fury over the river, the BOK Center, OneOK field, development downtown in general).  Why?  Because Tulsans are still living with the development ideas from another era.  In development (and in other areas of policy and politics), Tulsa lionizes the halcyon days of 1) the oil boom 2) the 30's deco period 3) the go-go Route 66 era or 4) the 80's flight to the cul-de-sac. 

All of this is to say:  we look ever backwards here, so it should be no surprise when "the new" gains little/no traction.