Before I write this I will state a disclaimer. Disclaimer begins in 5...4...3...2...1...
I think Memphis has a very good mayor. For 14 years before I moved here the mayor of Memphis was apparently one of the most unlikeable, hate-filled, racist (he is black), corrupt politicians in the history of a city with a rich history of corrupt politicians. The current mayor, A.C. Wharton, seems by all accounts to be very different. I listened to him speak at St. Jude once. He exudes charisma and excitement. He is very positive about this city. He has cut some huge deals to bring big businesses to the city. He is very likeable, not hate-filled, and not a racist (he doesn't blame everybody's problems on white people). The refreshing thing is, I don't know if he's a democrat or a republican. I'm assuming he's a democrat because, hey, this is Memphis but I like him and will vote for his re-election in 2012.
Disclaimer is now over. However, a story in the local news today baffles me. As he always does, Mayor Wharton is this city's number one cheerleader and is always looking for ways to promote the city and for ways to take advantage of programs to bring money into Memphis.
Mayor Bloomberg of NYC has a personal foundation which offers grants to help cities that are suffering excessively from the typical woes that urban areas face (certainly Memphis fits that bill). The foundation focuses on public health, education, the arts, the environment, social services, and innovations in government.
Memphis has been selected to receive a portion of funds from this foundation to combat its many problems. One of Wharton's ideas that caught Mayor Bloomberg's attention is the notion of offering cash incentives to parents as a way to get them involved in their child's education.
I'm a little puzzled by this. On the one hand I want to say that at least Mayor Wharton realizes that a lack of parental involvement is at the top of the list of why Memphis's schools are failing. I mean, there really isn't much that city government can do to legislate better parental involvement.
But on the other hand I'm thinking, is this really the best that can be done with this money?? Offer it to parents, many who are going to spend it on heaven-knows-what?? And the ones who aren't going to spend it on cigarettes, alcohol, drugs, etc. are the ones who aren't involved because they are single moms and have to work full-time just to pay bills so they won't be able to increase their involvement very easily anyway.
Is this what we've come to in our society?? Inner city parents aren't motivated by love to supervise their child's education so we have to offer them money? How pathetic. And sad.
I like Mayor Wharton and I'll chalk this decision up to a moment of careless brainstorming for solutions. He's earned the benefit of the doubt, I think. But it's a sad day when we start rewarding deadbeat parents with a paycheck.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I'm not really familiar with Memphis' problems. But, I'd be curious about this. If deadbeat parents are the problem of schools doing so poorly, and you feel like improving the overall schooling experience would be a major benefit not only to the citizens of Memphis, but the country overall (because, hey, we all profit from well-educated children, right?). So, if deadbeat parents really are such a big problem, what would YOU do to help the situation?
ReplyDeleteJust wondering...I'm not saying I have an idea, or that I think Mayor Wharton is right, or anything. I'm just throwing it out there - what could be done to improve things and get parents, who apparently don't care, involved?
If there is anything we have learned in America, it's that throwing money at our educational system and problems DOESN'T SOLVE ANYTHING.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.nationmaster.com/graph/edu_spe_per_sec_sch_stu-spending-per-secondary-school-student
And we are still one of the most uneducated countries!
http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/2010/dec/07/world-education-rankings-maths-science-reading
I think that this is a terrible plan. Parents MIGHT spend a few more hours with their kids, for a few weeks. But how would a kid feel about it if he knew the only reason he was getting more attention was because his mom/dad was getting a little bit of cash for it.
I would argue that is potentially emotionally damaging to a child.
Sad story!
Well, sad maybe. But I'd still like to hear some ideas on what COULD be done, reasonably, with the situation at hand. I realize, it's easy to point out that something is the wrong thing to do. Can we think of something that might be the right thing? If so, maybe it'd worth formulating it, and writing a letter to the mayor. Complaining is easy. Finding workable solutions, not as much...
ReplyDeleteActually I find the idea a very interesting one. The whole point of the small testing program is to see if it is more effective to just spend money paying parents to help kids than a much larger amount at school that does not help.
ReplyDeleteEssentially, programs like this have the potential to cut out the middle man and save money while raising success rates. The whole point in testing them with small grants is to see if they can work.
I agree with Fran. We can bemoan all we want how much money is "thrown" at education, but if what we are doing isn't working we need to try different methods and let the numbers dictate what we do from there. Simply spending less isn't going to solve anything.
I'm not arguing to spend less.
ReplyDeleteI am saying that if a parent needs to be motivated to be a parent with cash then the problem is a LOT BIGGER than handing out $20 bills.
This is a society wide problem. It is a civic problem. NOT an education problem. What we are discussing here is the school system trying to put a band-aid on a symptom of a larger issue.
I do not believe that it is cheaper to PAY parents to be parents. There are already laws in place that try to ensure that parents don't just let their kids flunk out of school. Truancy officers and Social services that work with these kids. I know. Bekah worked that job for a year in Provo when she was finishing up school. HUGE problems in this area. The fact is that most of these parents (LDS included) DONT WANT THEIR OWN KIDS. They don't give a crap!
Unfortunately, there is no "solution" for a parent who doesn't want to act like a parent. They have agency to act however they want. And motivating them is very difficult. The small amount of cash that we are talking about them potentially getting isn't going to change that.
The keyword for this whole post is "deadbeat." And I think that sums it up to a nicety:(
I am sorry if I misunderstood you Ammon, you talked a lot about spending...
ReplyDeleteSure it is a civic issue, which is why government, and education as part of the government, has concern.
I totally disagree that laws meant to enforce parents through penalties is at all relevant in talking about motivation through positive reinforcement. The only way to know if you can motivate them through money is to try it. Certainly we can agree that threatening them hasn't helped?
My sister is an elementary teacher. Support at home is one of, if not the biggest piece of the puzzle in a child's educational success. Certainly this a major issue that will take all sorts of angles to attack to keep our society from completely imploding. Why not try one out to see if it has even a small impact?
If we have a plague of "deadbeat" parents, how do we address that?
The Gospel :)
ReplyDeleteWhat about those LDS parents in Provo that were "deadbeats"?
ReplyDeleteThe actually have to start living the gospel. Not just doing the minimum. Like the rest of the world.
ReplyDeleteSure, once everyone is perfect we won't need any laws either, as people will do what is right without outside reinforcement.
ReplyDeleteAny suggestions for those living outside of the city of Enoch when it comes to getting parents invested in their child's educational success?
Kyle, Honestly!
ReplyDeleteDo you really think that I am talking about being perfect?
My mom and dad spent tons of time with me and they are SO FAR FROM perfect. This has absolutely nothing to do with being perfect. That is stupid!
It has everything to do with desires. The desire to actually be there for your kids. Not just ignore them. That's a huge problem in the world. Babysitters, daycare, nannies, TV's and video games are where kids spend the majority of time when not at school (and I am talking about homes with both parents, NOT single parent families).
People have kids, then they ignore them for 18 years. As the gap in the relationship grows as the kids grow into adults, frustration, and often times hostility, replace love and respect and family values. Then parents wonder why their kid turned to drugs, gangs or other venues for love and acceptance or distraction or self-medication. And Jerry Springer cashes the paycheck while Americans laugh and gossip about what a great show it was:(
The natural desire should be to see their offspring become the best that they can be. Then that desire turns to action and the parent becomes and integral part of the child's life. Supporting him/her and encouraging them in their own pursuits.
A parent doesn't have to be perfect to do any of this. He/she can't be perfect at this.
I for one don't understand why people have a child, or a bunch of kids if they are just going to be annoyed by them all the time. It is really sad!
NOTE: there are always many exceptions. A single parent who is always working, etc. But if that is the problem... (A parent who isn't in the home cause they are working to pay the bills) then paying them a few dollars really can't change that. Unless of course you are prepared to really supplement their income. But I think that is a very different topic.
Paying parents bills so they can stay at home with their kids would be a economic disaster!
It was intended to be funny.
ReplyDeleteLet me put it this way. You are saying that the answer is people being good parents. Well, yes... the problem is "deadbeat" parents, so yes having them be good parents is the ultimate answer.
The program is not trying to make them good parents at all, but from the little information I have read it is about getting them invested in their child's education.
The program doesn't care if the dad takes the kid fishing or the mom teaches them to bake cookies together.
You have said you don't think a little money will make a difference. It might not. However, schools will spend money to try and raise test scores. As support at home is a targeted area of concern for under-preforming kids this is a means of trying to do that in a direct and cost-effective way. Testing is the only way to know for sure if it will or won't work.
The question isn't how can we make them good parents, but how can we get them more involved in their child's education. Money seems to be a good motivator for all sorts of behavior, even in small amounts, so why not try a direct way of getting parents involved.