SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : View from the Center and Left -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: koan who wrote (213028)12/29/2012 6:51:10 PM
From: epicure2 Recommendations  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 541674
 
My high school counselor told me I was not high school material, but that has zero to do with kids in Richmond today. It was a different world, and she was looking solely at my grades, and the fact that I had been cutting most classes my first two years of high school (and then got straight A's the next two.) Unlike most ghetto kids, though, I had an enormous vocabulary, and had been raised by bizarre, but educated, parents, and had had enormous advantages.

You had a factory to work in. The kids today don't have that option. You had a dad who you, presumably, saw go off to work. Kids in Richmond don't have that.

The kids in Richmond are so dysfunctional that to remediate them they need to be completely reeducated, for the most part. I don't know how we do that with the teens- they are so anti-social it's unbelievable. If we started with the smallest children, and made sure they heard more than the limited vocabularies of their mothers, and that they were properly fed, and that they were decently cared for, we could make a start- and I'm actually for that. I've even proposed that in the past.

But treating the deadly dysfunction of the older children seems to me a waste of money. We'd do better to start with the young, and just realize that the older generation is, for the most part, lost. I say we still have programs for them, but don't be surprised if they don't work, for most. The way to cure the problem is starting as young as possible.

But where is the will? With all the talk of deficits, I see no real will to do anything, much less the large social engineering experiments that would result in a cure.



To: koan who wrote (213028)12/30/2012 2:22:11 AM
From: cosmicforce  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 541674
 
The statistics are not on your side. My guess is that if what you are saying is really true, your class in Richmond of that year is a rare statistical cluster phenomenon.

It is hard to convince people that their peer group is or was not average, as I indicated in another post.

Okay, your class of under-performers (leftover kids, as you call them) at Richmond went on to solve the all world's problems brilliantly. That is not typical and it isn't elitist to state the typical case which we must address is otherwise: if someone comes from a home with a working vocabulary of 2000 words (not atypical in a home without academic enrichment) it is very hard if not impossible to develop complicated ideas. You keep talking about poker as though it is a proxy for potential academic success. Okay, if one wins at poker, you've got skills, can memorize the odds and more importantly can read people's tells. Good for you - but that doesn't make that person able to design an aircraft flight control system. I don't know if you actually believe your propaganda but simply saying it is true isn't going to make someone with a limited intellectual exposure suddenly an insightful leader in some field. In general, such behavior and claims makes them a crank. A crank is a person who is, at their core, probably intelligent, but anti-intellectual and claims people that worked hard in their field within the mainstream are elitist.

One of the best predictors of a child's vocabulary development is the amount and diversity of input the child receives. Researchers have found that verbal input can be as great as three times more available in educated families than in less educated families. These facts have led educators to suspect that basic and pervasive differences in the level of social support for language learning lie at the root of many learning problems in the later school years. Social interaction (quality of attachment; parent responsiveness, involvement, sensitivity, and control style) and general intellectual climate (providing enriching toys, reading books, encouraging attention to surroundings) predict developing language competence in children as well. Relatively uneducated and economically disadvantaged mothers talk less frequently to their children compared with more educated and affluent mothers, and correspondingly, children of less educated and less affluent mothers produce less speech. Socioeconomic status relates to both child vocabulary and to maternal vocabulary. Middle-class mothers expose their children to a richer vocabulary, with longer sentences and a greater number of word roots.


Read more: Language Acquisition - The Basic Components of Human Language, Methods for Studying Language Acquisition, Phases in Language Development - StateUniversity.com education.stateuniversity.com