ESPN The Marinovich Project

[Senator]

Tonight at 8, on 30 for 30, but on my DVR it is called Year of the Quarterback, is The Marinovich Project.

This has personal interest to me. I followed him through college and Pro's and the disaster that followed. In many ways, he is similar to Herren in Unguarded. The difference is that his father Marv had an idea. He wanted to see what would happen if his hobby was his son. With all his knowledge on nutrition, strength, training, and fundamentals, could he make a super athlete if he spent all his effort on this boy instead? The entire Marinovich story is a cautionary tell to those of us older than 30 of kids being pushed too hard, and parents with self perceived good intentions ruining their loved ones life.

I have corresponded with Todd over the past few years in emails, bought one of his paintings. If I ever write another book, it might his biography.

What is most fascinating to me on a personal level now is, I have coached football for 7 years, and now my son is ready to start playing himself. He has been around all my teams, and has already shown a passion for the game. I teach him slowly, building on fundamentals, and what interest him is throwing the ball. I find myself saying, "Oh no, not Quarterback!" and then going to "What do I need to make sure I teach him and am I giving him every opportunity? Should we work on footwork or coverage recognitions today?" I have been around dads for 7 years who truly in their hearts believe their sons are something special on the gridiron and any failure is the fault of the coach, the system, the players, the ref. It is a sort of sickness, that I don't think I am immune to, because you have to fight against your nature and focus on the once in a lifetime opportunity to be around your son and maybe share something you love.

Looking forward to tonight's show very much. (and a kid from Baylor winning the Heisman!)

[tarcone]

I understand what you are going through. I have coached varsity sports and saw parents with unrealistic expectations. It has really helped me with my daughters. When they were younger, I really wanted them to excel at sports. I coached their teams and pushed them. But as I matured as a parent, I realized what they are as athletes. Pretty good, maybe above average at certain things. Not D-1 prospects by any means.
My oldest is afraid of contact to a certain extent. And she hated a ball coming at her fast. She plays soccer and basketball, which she does pretty well at. Nothing spectacular, but she is a solid role player. She quit softball. I hated that, but left it up to her. She tried and didnt have fun. She is a runner. Mom was an all-state cross country runner and my daughter shows ability in that. So that will be our focus.
My younger daughter does very well in basketball. Okay in soccer. She is thinking of quitting softball. Too boring. But I think basketball will be her sport.
With both my daughters, we have eliminated or severely cut back on 2 sport seasons. We focus on the sport that is in season. But most of all, we try and focus on them having fun. That is the most important thing. Having fun. If they dont have fun, they wont do it.

I guees with this ramble is make sure the kids are having fun. The Marinovich story is a tale of a kid that quit having fun, IMO. Thats why I think he crashed so hard. It became a grind.

I will watch this tonight. That story intrigued me as well.

[jbergey22]

Originally Posted by Senator

Should we work on footwork or coverage recognitions today?" I have been around dads for 7 years who truly in their hearts believe their sons are something special on the gridiron and any failure is the fault of the coach, the system, the players, the ref. It is a sort of sickness, that I don't think I am immune to, because you have to fight against your nature and focus on the once in a lifetime opportunity to be around your son and maybe share something you love.

Looking forward to tonight's show very much. (and a kid from Baylor winning the Heisman!)

I also am very interested in this story. Should be entertaining.

With your son it already sounds like you have the right plan in place. As long as you are considering his thoughts and feelings its unlikely that you are going to push him too hard. It will be such a plus for him having you teach him about fundamentals at an early age. The defense recognition for a 7 year old might be a bit much Of course I dont know his personality so if he is smart and enjoys it perhaps its the perfect time for it.

EDIT re-reading though I guess you didnt mention your sons age. I came up with 7 from the years you have coached apparently

[B & B]

People love stories of squandered talent and potential.

That being said, if this helps one father to be a better parent than a coach Im all for it.


Oh, and RG3 is a mortal lock.

[BYU 14]

This should be required viewing for any parent with a child in sports

[molson]

It's kind of funny to look back and see one element of Marv's insane parenting was that he wouldn't let his kid eat fast food, he would only let him eat beef that wasn't treated with hormones, and only unprocessed dairy products, and he wouldn't let him eat cake or drink soda. I know lots of parents of non-future athletes who engage in this kind of parenting today. And just replace the football stuff with "educational" activities, it's the same kind of micro-managing. I think we're going to have a whole generation of Marinovich's soon, completely unprepared for adversity.

[lcjjdnh]

Originally Posted by molson

And just replace the football stuff with "educational" activities, it's the same kind of micro-managing.

David Brooks--who I'm usually not a huge fan of--wrote a pretty good Atlantic article along similar lines about 10 years ago. It also raises one oft-overlooked aspect of this debate--the further bifurcation of our educational system. For all the moaning about how kids are "entitled" and "lazy" today, the "elite" students work much harder and take on much more responsibility than kids did a few decades ago.

The Organization Kid - Magazine - The Atlantic

[molson]

Originally Posted by lcjjdnh

David Brooks--who I'm usually not a huge fan of--wrote a pretty good Atlantic article along similar lines about 10 years ago. It also raises one oft-overlooked aspect of this debate--the further bifurcation of our educational system. For all the moaning about how kids are "entitled" and "lazy" today, the "elite" students work much harder and take on much more responsibility than kids did a few decades ago.

The Organization Kid - Magazine - The Atlantic

To think, those hard working elite from 2001 are now a part of the hated 1%

Ya, that does put a wrinkle in it - if Marinovich was a true football "genius" he might have really flourished as Marv's son. We might have looked back with respect about how a parent recognized his son's skills, and helped facilitate them until he became great on his own, and then even greater. I think for 99% of us though, (probably 99.9%), a more balanced childhood is going to lead to a better chance at happiness. But on the other hand, for all we know, Todd's a very happy person today. "Failing at the NFL" is no real fail, the drug stuff is, but a lot of people go through that.

[DanGarion]

Originally Posted by molson

It's kind of funny to look back and see one element of Marv's insane parenting was that he wouldn't let his kid eat fast food, he would only let him eat beef that wasn't treated with hormones, and only unprocessed dairy products, and he wouldn't let him eat cake or drink soda. I know lots of parents of non-future athletes who engage in this kind of parenting today. And just replace the football stuff with "educational" activities, it's the same kind of micro-managing. I think we're going to have a whole generation of Marinovich's soon, completely unprepared for adversity.

Have you been paying attention to the kids involved in the Occupy Wallstreet movement?

[DanGarion]

Originally Posted by molson

To think, those hard working elite from 2001 are now a part of the hated 1%

Ya, that does put a wrinkle in it - if Marinovich was a true football "genius" he might have really flourished as Marv's son. We might have looked back with respect about how a parent recognized his son's skills, and helped facilitate them until he became great on his own, and then even greater. I think for 99% of us though, (probably 99.9%), a more balanced childhood is going to lead to a better chance at happiness. But on the other hand, for all we know, Todd's a very happy person today. "Failing at the NFL" is no real fail, the drug stuff is, but a lot of people go through that.

No they aren't they can't get the jobs they feel they are entitled to...

[lcjjdnh]

Originally Posted by molson

To think, those hard working elite from 2001 are now a part of the hated 1%

Although--as you sort of allude to with your point about adversity--part of the problem is that many of these people are completely unprepared for the broader social responsibility that should come with being in these positions. No questioning of the system itself--they just accept it. The focus on hard work has convinced these people they deserve the positions they have when for many, but not all of them, structural inequality and luck (being born into the right family) played a huge role. The prevailing belief in "meritocracy" convinces the winners they're winners based on "merit"--and that the losers are losers based on lack of "merit"--when we don't really have an even playing field. But because the idea meritocracy exists legitimizes the system, it gives the winners an excuse to keep the unfair system in place.

Also, for all the talk on this board lamenting how society has grown to expect people should be rewarded for "just showing up", threads like this should provide a cautionary tale. Although people may occasionally complain they should be rewarded no matter what, it's almost certainly not the case that the structure of society has changed in anyway. The competition at "elite" levels of athletics and education is out of control (and wasteful, since it's just a status competition, not necessarily increasing productivity). The people that feel they're entitled to things are often people that have trained long hours and worked extraordinarily hard--much more so than their predecessors a decade or two ago.

[molson]

Originally Posted by lcjjdnh

Although--as you sort of allude to with your point about adversity--part of the problem is that many of these people are completely unprepared for the broader social responsibility that should come with being in these positions. No questioning of the system itself--they just accept it. The focus on hard work has convinced these people they deserve the positions they have when for many, but not all of them, structural inequality and luck (being born into the right family) played a huge role. The prevailing belief in "meritocracy" convinces the winners they're winners based on "merit"--and that the losers are losers based on lack of "merit"--when we don't really have an even playing field. But because the idea meritocracy exists legitimizes the system, it gives the winners an excuse to keep the unfair system in place.

We really don't know that all (or many) of the people described in the 2001 article carry that attitude around with them. The last paragraphs would seem to indicate the opposite. And if they do feel proud of themselves, even a little, I don't know that that's such a huge problem that the rest of us have to be pissed off about.

And you're not going isolate luck and "the right family" out of an equation that contains hundreds of millions of people. Luck is luck, and I'm not sure how "the right family" has become this bad thing people are supposed to be ashamed of. What's wrong with wanting the best for your kids? Sometimes, like Marv, maybe you go to far and give your kid obstacles, but I think generally, good parenting is still a desirable thing. Even if it creates "inequity" because of all the bad parents out there.

Maybe before anybody reaches $50k in annual income they should have to get a tattoo on their face saying they're no better than anyone else, they haven't accomplished anything on their own, and it was all luck and their parents' doing? We've already convinced those that don't make that kind of money that they've all done everything absolutely right, they're just as smart and skilled as people making more, and if they just wait around for society to change they'll get their big house through no additional action on their part. So that would seem to be the next natural step. I just don't understand why the middle ground is so elusive here. You can do things to improve your chances in life, but there's no guarantees. You can do things to improve the chances of your children in life (as "unfair" as some people find that concept), but there's no guarantees. You can also be a shitty parent and raise great kids, and then think you're a great parent. You can make 5,000 wrong choices, but have a supportive family that picks you up each time until you eventually get your act together. Or you can do all the right things, be good, be charitable, be hardworking, and have some corporate CEO screw you out of your entire retirement. Or you could be killed by a drunk driver the day before you start the retirement you saved for. Or you can come from humble beginnings, work hard, be thrifty, don't assume you're entitled to anything, and slowly work and save towards a comfortable life. There's a lot of shit that can happen. Nobody is morally "entitled" to anything - you can luck into it, you can be born in a great situation (BOOOOO good parenting and parents saving for their kids!!!), you can work towards it, or, you just might not get it. But nobody is "morally" entitled to success, and the only ones that seem to me to be claiming they are, is SOME members of that younger generation who doesn't like the fact that the house and car didn't show up for them on their 18th birthday, so now they're angry at banks, and people who have houses and cars.

Edit: I wonder how many of our liberal posters with some means limit the educational and other opportunities of their children in the interest of societal "fairness".

[molson]

Originally Posted by DanGarion

No they aren't they can't get the jobs they feel they are entitled to...

Damn, I wish I knew exactly which job I was "entitled to", so I didn't have to get turned down so much before I got the jobs I did. And I do admit, good parenting, and luck, did help me to be the very modest success that I am. Did I have ANYTHING to do with it? Is there any "merit" there? I really don't know, but I do think I would have pissed away the good parenting and luck if I spent my 20s boozed up and high and sleeping in, because I'm not one of those "driven" people that enjoys work for for work's sake. It's actually a pain in the ass. (If my parents tried to raise me as one of those "elite" academics, or as an "elite" football player - it would have been a catastrophe as I am not close to elite in either area).

[NorvTurnerOverdrive]

it was a really good story. i got a little misty eyed. i had no idea he was such a talented artist. hope he stays clean. good stuff.

wish everything on this board didn't devolve into political bickering.

[lcjjdnh]

Originally Posted by molson

We really don't know that all (or many) of the people described in the 2001 article carry that attitude around with them. The last paragraphs would seem to indicate the opposite. And if they do feel proud of themselves, even a little, I don't know that that's such a huge problem that the rest of us have to be pissed off about.

And you're not going isolate luck and "the right family" out of an equation that contains hundreds of millions of people. Luck is luck, and I'm not sure how "the right family" has become this bad thing people are supposed to be ashamed of. What's wrong with wanting the best for your kids? Sometimes, like Marv, maybe you go to far and give your kid obstacles, but I think generally, good parenting is still a desirable thing. Even if it creates "inequity" because of all the bad parents out there.

Maybe before anybody reaches $50k in annual income they should have to get a tattoo on their face saying they're no better than anyone else, they haven't accomplished anything on their own, and it was all luck and their parents' doing? We've already convinced those that don't make that kind of money that they've all done everything absolutely right, they're just as smart and skilled as people making more, and if they just wait around for society to change they'll get their big house through no additional action on their part. So that would seem to be the next natural step. I just don't understand why the middle ground is so elusive here. You can do things to improve your chances in life, but there's no guarantees. You can do things to improve the chances of your children in life (as "unfair" as some people find that concept), but there's no guarantees. You can also be a shitty parent and raise great kids, and then think you're a great parent. You can make 5,000 wrong choices, but have a supportive family that picks you up each time until you eventually get your act together. Or you can do all the right things, be good, be charitable, be hardworking, and have some corporate CEO screw you out of your entire retirement. Or you could be killed by a drunk driver the day before you start the retirement you saved for. Or you can come from humble beginnings, work hard, be thrifty, don't assume you're entitled to anything, and slowly work and save towards a comfortable life. There's a lot of shit that can happen. Nobody is morally "entitled" to anything - you can luck into it, you can be born in a great situation (BOOOOO good parenting and parents saving for their kids!!!), you can work towards it, or, you just might not get it. But nobody is "morally" entitled to success, and the only ones that seem to me to be claiming they are, is SOME members of that younger generation who doesn't like the fact that the house and car didn't show up for them on their 18th birthday, so now they're angry at banks, and people who have houses and cars.

Edit: I wonder how many of our liberal posters with some means limit the educational and other opportunities of their children in the interest of societal "fairness".

In the old days, institutions limited admissions based on last name and religion. Today, institutions have nominally opened up to admission based on "merit", but it's often times just a proxy for wealth. It's much easier to demonstrate your "merit" when your rich parents can fund SAT tutors, unpaid internships, and resume-boosting summer vacations spent teaching Eskimos how to play cello. But because we pretend the system is really "merit" based it only further legitimizes it and convinces the winners they deserve it.

School desegregation is similar. Sure, thanks to Brown v. Bd. of Ed, we no longer have laws enforcing school segregation. But schools in many places are arguably nearly segregated as they were decades ago . But again, because school segregation is illegal, it somehow legitimizes a system that is arguably just as unfair.

And as I've repeatedly stressed in other threads, we shouldn't be pissed off at people that make money, but we should be at those that make it at the expense of societal welfare. You guys all bitch and moan about the OWS protestors who you claim feel they're "entitled" to a bunch of stuff. But the people working at Wall Street banks are just as bad. They think they're "entitled" to their big paychecks just because they work hard even though a quite plausible argument could be made they are actually harming society. It's not at all clear to me why that is somehow more noble--really, it's worse.

[molson]

Originally Posted by lcjjdnh

In the old days, institutions limited admissions based on last name and religion. Today, institutions have nominally opened up to admission based on "merit", but it's often times just a proxy for wealth. It's much easier to demonstrate your "merit" when your rich parents can fund SAT tutors, unpaid internships, and resume-boosting summer vacations spent teaching Eskimos how to play cello. But because we pretend the system is really "merit" based it only further legitimizes it and convinces the winners they deserve it.

School desegregation is similar. Sure, thanks to Brown v. Bd. of Ed, we no longer have laws enforcing school segregation. But schools in many places are arguably nearly segregated as they were decades ago . But again, because school segregation is illegal, it somehow legitimizes a system that is arguably just as unfair.

And as I've repeatedly stressed in other threads, we shouldn't be pissed off at people that make money, but we should be at those that make it at the expense of societal welfare. You guys all bitch and moan about the OWS protestors who you claim feel they're "entitled" to a bunch of stuff. But the people working at Wall Street banks are just as bad. They think they're "entitled" to their big paychecks just because they work hard even though a quite plausible argument could be made they are actually harming society. It's not at all clear to me why that is somehow more noble--really, it's worse.

Ya, I know you're not pissed off at people that make money, you're only pissed off at the ones that have a particular attitude you find distasteful. It's an amusing distinction.

Do you resent good parenting for the inequalities it causes in society? (We're talking about parenting in this thread, right?) I have a much better life than I would if I parents were meth addicts and broke. That was a big, big advantage I had. Why is it so impossible for a normal human to think that they had a great upbringing, and then took advantage through skill and effort? Why is this concept so offensive to you? I had a solid upbringing and solid skills. Someone else might have even more financial support, and even greater skills. Someone else might have unlimited financial support, and just so-so skills and mediocre work ethic, and that equation was enough lead them to great things. Most people understand this.

Edit: What does the parent with means, any means, do to stay morally correct in your world with regard to their kids? How should a parent of any means parent their clearly gifted kids, whether that gift be in athletics, or academics? Is there anything that parent could do for their children not to be resented by future lcjjdnhs? Should the parents get their kids to understand that they don't have anything to do with their success, it was all their parents' doing? Somehow, I doubt kids raised that way would achieve great things. There's plenty of rich people who believe exactly that - that they world is just kind of set and they can never really fall too far or succeed to a level that would make their parents proud, or that would matter at all in their family. For them, it's just a life of easy living, drugs, booze, cars, etc. That's definitely not the pool of bank executives, nor any 100-hour a week type job. It does take SOMETHING to achieve to those levels - that something is much more easily developed if your parents were able to give you advantages, no doubt. I'm not sure of anybody who disagrees with that. If I was a bitter OWS type I would be much more resentful of the children of the rich who never had to work and could screw up 1,000 times to no negative effect for them - not those who spent years in business school and law school and lived in the office.

[lcjjdnh]

Originally Posted by molson

Ya, I know you're not pissed off at people that make money, you're only pissed off at the ones that have a particular attitude you find distasteful. It's an amusing distinction.

I find it distasteful because it's harmful to other people. Let's say I own a widget factory. The widgets I produce provide $2 million in profits for me and $2 million in benefits for people that purchase them. But an unfortunate byproduct of making widget is green sludge that causes $20 million in pollution. If I'm think only my own economic benefit, this doesn't bother me, because I don't internalize the cost--it's externalized onto other people. Is this not something we should concern ourselves about either through gov't regulation or social norms. If yes, why should we not examine the actual benefits of other industries--like, say, investment banking--before patting someone on the back for working hard and getting a job?

Do you resent good parenting for the inequalities it causes in society? (We're talking about parenting in this thread, right?) I have a much better life than I would if I parents were meth addicts and broke. That was a big, big advantage I had. Why is it so impossible for a normal human to think that they had a great upbringing, and then took advantage through skill and effort? Why is this concept so offensive to you? I had a solid upbringing and solid skills. Someone else might have even more financial support, and even greater skills. Someone else might have unlimited financial support, and just so-so skills and mediocre work ethic, and that equation was enough lead them to great things. Most people understand this.

I resent when "good parenting" turns into an excuse for maintaining structural inequality. The wealthy have essentially abandoned the urban poor by placing their own children in private schools or moving out to the suburbs. It doesn't help much for Harvard to open its admissions doors if it ends up just admitting students based on criteria that are often just proxies for wealth. As I've mentioned in other threads, I've gone to "elite" public schools for my undergraduate and graduate educations. It is dispiriting how little diversity (socioeconomically and race) for a country that is supposedly a land of opportunity.

And to tie things back into this thread, it's not quite clear how much some of this parenting is actually socially beneficial. Much of it is just an arms race. To get a football scholarship, it's not about being a "good" football player, it's about being a better football player than other people getting recruited. Are either society or children better off than they were, say, 30 years ago, when year-round focus on one sport, professionalized training, and travel leagues weren't the norm?

[molson]

Originally Posted by lcjjdnh

I resent when "good parenting" turns into an excuse for maintaining structural inequality.

Originally Posted by lcjjdnh

And to tie things back into this thread, it's not quite clear how much some of this parenting is actually socially beneficial. Much of it is just an arms race.

Well that's what I'm getting act. To where trying to provide for your children and give them advantages is considered detrimental to society. Though extreme, I guess I can see that view - only give your kid a lower middle class kind of upbringing, even if you can afford more. If a parent did that, I'd respect their conviction to that view. But what to make then of middle class and higher liberals who do want their children to "have more"? Are they wrong? It does seem there's a ton of middle class people, just anecdotally, who are into the 1% thing and vote Democrat but then are also "super-parents" trying to give their kid every advantage. Is that hypocritical? (because if it is, I bet I can really piss off a lot of my friends by claiming such).

[lcjjdnh]

Originally Posted by molson

Well that's what I'm getting act. To where trying to provide for your children and give them advantages is considered detrimental to society. Though extreme, I guess I can see that view - only give your kid a lower middle class kind of upbringing, even if you can afford more. If a parent did that, I'd respect their conviction to that view. But what to make then of middle class and higher liberals who do want their children to "have more"? Are they wrong? It does seem there's a ton of middle class people, just anecdotally, who are into the 1% thing and vote Democrat but then are also "super-parents" trying to give their kid every advantage. Is that hypocritical? (because if it is, I bet I can really piss off a lot of my friends by claiming such).

I'm not sure "hypocritical" is the right word, but I find it somewhat disingenuous that many wealthy people (liberals and conservatives) have all sorts of theories about how to fix inner-city public schools (destroy unions, use charter schools, provide vouchers, etc.) when poverty and their own exclusionary decisions (sending kids to private schools or wealthy public schools) are likely a much larger factor in the problems with those schools.

Clearly there is a collective-action problem--everyone has an incentive to defect and give their kid every advantage (which leads to the arms race). In many cases (building roads, providing police, etc.), the government acts as a coordinator to solve collection-action problems. The question then becomes if and how it should do anything about this. School busing was one pretty decent solution, I thought, but it has been a politically untenable one.

[sovereignstar v2]

[molson]

There's another example. Dan Castellaneta's parents were super encouraging of his comedic talents, they had him in acting school at a young age. I don't know if it reached Marv Marinovich levels of "encouragement", but it might have been close. And Dan is now one rich bastard. I bet he realizes it was some combination of his parents' encouragement and his own unique talents. I don't know if society would have been better if we had a more "fair" determination of who should have been Homer - and it didn't just go to the guy who had all these advantages growing up and fell in love with comedy and acting at a young age.

[Warhammer]

Originally Posted by molson

Well that's what I'm getting act. To where trying to provide for your children and give them advantages is considered detrimental to society. Though extreme, I guess I can see that view - only give your kid a lower middle class kind of upbringing, even if you can afford more. If a parent did that, I'd respect their conviction to that view. But what to make then of middle class and higher liberals who do want their children to "have more"? Are they wrong? It does seem there's a ton of middle class people, just anecdotally, who are into the 1% thing and vote Democrat but then are also "super-parents" trying to give their kid every advantage. Is that hypocritical? (because if it is, I bet I can really piss off a lot of my friends by claiming such).

How is giving your kids opportunities detrimental to society? Pulling kids out of public school is bad? How so? So my kids can be held back due to out of control kids that disrupt classes? I'm not pulling my funding of schools, I still pay my taxes that go to the public schools.

I am sick of the parents of the lower 10% holding my kids back. Having to spend extra time on a subject because they don't take the time at home to make sure their child is learning. I am sick of my kids being the ones that are not pushed forward by being put in a class of kids with equal ability, but being held back because they might rub off on some of the other ones. Instead of promoting excellence, we are reigning in kids to mediocrity.


For what it is worth, my kids are in public school because we cannot afford private schooling. We're lucky that we have a pretty good school, but I am tired of hearing about disruptive kids every day. It is always the same set of kids. If the kids don't want to be there, send them home to the parents. Sure, they have a right to learn, but they need to be there to learn. They do not have a right to disrupting my kids right to learn. If their parents will not instill the importance of an education to their kids, get them out of the schools so the other kids who want the opportunity to learn can learn.

[Chubby]

Originally Posted by Warhammer

How is giving your kids opportunities detrimental to society? Pulling kids out of public school is bad? How so? So my kids can be held back due to out of control kids that disrupt classes? I'm not pulling my funding of schools, I still pay my taxes that go to the public schools.

I am sick of the parents of the lower 10% holding my kids back. Having to spend extra time on a subject because they don't take the time at home to make sure their child is learning. I am sick of my kids being the ones that are not pushed forward by being put in a class of kids with equal ability, but being held back because they might rub off on some of the other ones. Instead of promoting excellence, we are reigning in kids to mediocrity.


For what it is worth, my kids are in public school because we cannot afford private schooling. We're lucky that we have a pretty good school, but I am tired of hearing about disruptive kids every day. It is always the same set of kids. If the kids don't want to be there, send them home to the parents. Sure, they have a right to learn, but they need to be there to learn. They do not have a right to disrupting my kids right to learn. If their parents will not instill the importance of an education to their kids, get them out of the schools so the other kids who want the opportunity to learn can learn.

blah blah blah your kid is more important than anyone else's. Your attitude is just as bad for the school as the parent who doesn't care and let's their kid do whatever they want.

[Buccaneer]

Originally Posted by Chubby

blah blah blah your kid is more important than anyone else's. Your attitude is just as bad for the school as the parent who doesn't care and let's their kid do whatever they want.

So your solution would be to make every kid mediocre?

[Chubby]

Originally Posted by Buccaneer

So your solution would be to make every kid mediocre?

Didn't say that that was the solution, it's obviously in the middle of the 2 extremes. I don't have an issue with any parent trying to get the best for their own child but it shouldn't come at the expense of anyone else's kids either.

I went to a "rich kids" school district and the attitude of "my kid is the only thing that matters" was all too prevelant. It does just as much damage as the parents that don't care. Public school is there for the public, not just "your" kid.

Do you think resources should be taken away from special needs kids because they're resources that could be used on honors classes/exceptional kids?

[DaddyTorgo]

Originally Posted by Chubby

Didn't say that that was the solution, it's obviously in the middle of the 2 extremes. I don't have an issue with any parent trying to get the best for their own child but it shouldn't come at the expense of anyone else's kids either.

I went to a "rich kids" school district and the attitude of "my kid is the only thing that matters" was all too prevelant. It does just as much damage as the parents that don't care. Public school is there for the public, not just "your" kid.

Do you think resources should be taken away from special needs kids because they're resources that could be used on honors classes/exceptional kids?

I don't think that's what he's arguing at all.

[Chubby]

Originally Posted by DaddyTorgo

I don't think that's what he's arguing at all.

He's arguing that if the kid "doesn't want to learn, get them out of the school" (well, WH is)

sorry, but WH's kid isn't any more important than the disruptive kid. And yes, an argument could be made that the disruptive kid needs more "resources" (time, energy, etc...) spent on him. The school doesn't exist to serve my every whim, or WH's but the needs of all kids.

[DaddyTorgo]

Originally Posted by Chubby

He's arguing that if the kid "doesn't want to learn, get them out of the school" (well, WH is)

sorry, but WH's kid isn't any more important than the disruptive kid. And yes, an argument could be made that the disruptive kid needs more "resources" (time, energy, etc...) spent on him. The school doesn't exist to serve my every whim, or WH's but the needs of all kids.

There's a difference between "disruptive" and "special needs" though.

If the kid is just disruptive for the sake of being disruptive...fuck em...they deserve to be side-tracked into a program where they're not holding back the pace of learning for the kids who want to learn.

If the kid has special needs of some sort...then yes...by all means they should be given more resources. That's fine.

[dawgfan]

Pretty amazing how a thread about the Todd Marinovich story so quickly got thread-jacked into an Occupy Wall Street debate.

[Warhammer]

Originally Posted by Chubby

blah blah blah your kid is more important than anyone else's. Your attitude is just as bad for the school as the parent who doesn't care and let's their kid do whatever they want.

Where in the world did you read this in my post? It becomes about my kids when their are kids at the school that are keeping my kids, or anyone else's, from learning.

What about all the other kids that are not learning due to this one bad apple? One bad apple spoils the bunch and that is what happens all too often at our public schools.

My kids get grounded if they get so much as a demerit/move their clip/etc. at school. Why? My wife and I have made it clear that it is their job to learn at school. They are to behave, and if they do not, there are consequences.

We complain because those that have the resources put their kids in private schools. Why is that? Because it is our responsibility as parents to make sure that our children get the best upbringing we can give them. If that means private schools, so be it. Can this happen at private schools? Sure, but there are enough rules in place to keep this from being a problem.

But, don't blame parents that place their kids in private schools for trying to do the best for their kids.

[Warhammer]

Originally Posted by DaddyTorgo

I don't think that's what he's arguing at all.

It's not what I'm arguing. My point is that you put the talented/gifted kids in a class by themselves so they can push each other. It also means the kids can all have the most qualified teacher to teach (let's face it, some teachers are better with advanced students, some are better with remedial, and others do best with "standard" students). Those that need remedial help are put in the remedial class so they can all learn at their pace. This is a more efficient use of resources in schools.

For those concerned about kids getting to know one another, not all classes need to be setup this way. Gym, music, and other non-core cirriculum courses can be mixed.

[Warhammer]

Originally Posted by DaddyTorgo

There's a difference between "disruptive" and "special needs" though.

If the kid is just disruptive for the sake of being disruptive...fuck em...they deserve to be side-tracked into a program where they're not holding back the pace of learning for the kids who want to learn.

If the kid has special needs of some sort...then yes...by all means they should be given more resources. That's fine.

EXACTLY!

A special needs kid is fine. However, he should be with a teacher that is qualified to know how to handle them.

Kids with ADD are a good example. They can be disruptive, but if you know how to handle such kids, they have no problems in class whatsoever.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by Warhammer

But, don't blame parents that place their kids in private schools for trying to do the best for their kids.

I don't think we're getting "blamed" for it, most of the time the reality seems to be that they simply don't want to see other people's kids be successful. After all, that improves their kid's chances later in life without as much sacrifice on their part.

[Chubby]

Originally Posted by Warhammer

It's not what I'm arguing. My point is that you put the talented/gifted kids in a class by themselves so they can push each other. It also means the kids can all have the most qualified teacher to teach (let's face it, some teachers are better with advanced students, some are better with remedial, and others do best with "standard" students). Those that need remedial help are put in the remedial class so they can all learn at their pace. This is a more efficient use of resources in schools.

For those concerned about kids getting to know one another, not all classes need to be setup this way. Gym, music, and other non-core cirriculum courses can be mixed.

and when they get into the real world they don't know how to adjust to working with others that "aren't as great" as they are.

[BrianD]

Originally Posted by Chubby

and when they get into the real world they don't know how to adjust to working with others that "aren't as great" as they are.

This sounds like quite a first-world problem.

[lungs]

There is a reason the Todd Marinovichs of the world end up on heroin. One of my best friends is a baseball example of that. He is all right now but as soon as he went off to college he didn't have mom and dad coddling him. His mom actually drove two hours to do his laundry once. He ended up on crank and coke among other things. Never did learn to take care of himself but he has a woman to take care of him now and limits his vices to pot and vodka.

Pushing kids to excel is fine but they need to learn to excel at life in general and not just a narrow scope like a sport or talent.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by Chubby

and when they get into the real world they don't know how to adjust to working with others that "aren't as great" as they are.

The general idea isn't to work with them, the idea is to have them work for you ... and at your discretion.

[TroyF]

Originally Posted by Chubby

and when they get into the real world they don't know how to adjust to working with others that "aren't as great" as they are.

ummm, what? Even in a private school setting team dynamics are in play. Not everyone is going to be brilliant or a leader. There is a wide range in that group. You are making some widespread assumptions that I think have very little merit. just my opinion, I could be wrong.

[tarcone]

School is what a student makes of it. Teach your children the importance of an education and they will do very well in any educational setting. Even with the "bad apple" in class. And they will learn what happens when you waste an opportunity by watching the "bad apple".
A teacher that cant manage their classroomn is a bigger worry. "bad apples" can be contained by a strong teacher. And will do well when they see that their behavior isnt accomplishing what they want it too.

[AENeuman]

Originally Posted by Warhammer

For those concerned about kids getting to know one another, not all classes need to be setup this way. Gym, music, and other non-core cirriculum courses can be mixed.

A special needs kid is fine. However, he should be with a teacher that is qualified to know how to handle them.

Kids with ADD are a good example. They can be disruptive, but if you know how to handle such kids, they have no problems in class whatsoever.

Not sure how to read this other than you not wanting poor minorities in the classroom...

If you peal the onion back more than one layer you will see a much larger issue than good parents vs bad. Jon is right, we winners benefit way too much from the losers to want real change.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by AENeuman

Not sure how to read this other than you not wanting poor minorities in the classroom...

You think all the "bad apples" are minorities? Boy, should you meet some of the kids my son went to school with in the first few years.

[DaddyTorgo]

Originally Posted by tarcone

School is what a student makes of it. Teach your children the importance of an education and they will do very well in any educational setting. Even with the "bad apple" in class. And they will learn what happens when you waste an opportunity by watching the "bad apple".
A teacher that cant manage their classroomn is a bigger worry. "bad apples" can be contained by a strong teacher. And will do well when they see that their behavior isnt accomplishing what they want it too.

Isn't that a linked problem though? We're driving all the good teachers out of the profession...

[AENeuman]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

You think all the "bad apples" are minorities? Boy, should you meet some of the kids my son went to school with in the first few years.

I think it's a poor thing first. What i get from WH is that he wants kids who are not properly socialized to be removed from his classroom. The social skills that are required to be successful in the classroom are often very different than the skills needed (and encouraged) to be successful in the home environment.

I guess the icky way of saying this is: children need to learn how to act (white) middle class in order to be successful in our school system. I think the hugely disproportion number of minorities in special ed reflects this.

[Warhammer]

Originally Posted by DaddyTorgo

Isn't that a linked problem though? We're driving all the good teachers out of the profession...

I'm not sure we're driving all the good ones out, but the ones coming up by and large are not as good as the ones leaving.

That said, I think we handcuff ourselves somewhat. I remember going to school and watching kids threatened with ISS/OSS. In both cases it was a joke, those being threatened looked at it as a vacation. They didn't care. But, what other options for discipline did the school have?

I for one would have made them clean the bathrooms, but then you would get hit with cruel & unusual punishment, but knowing the bathrooms at the schools I went to, they wouldn't do it again.

[Warhammer]

Originally Posted by AENeuman

I think it's a poor thing first. What i get from WH is that he wants kids who are not properly socialized to be removed from his classroom. The social skills that are required to be successful in the classroom are often very different than the skills needed (and encouraged) to be successful in the home environment.

I guess the icky way of saying this is: children need to learn how to act (white) middle class in order to be successful in our school system. I think the hugely disproportion number of minorities in special ed reflects this.

I would argue teaching them this in school would help them in the workplace as well.

I work in sales. The last thing any of my customers want to see are earrings, piercings, long hair, etc. We need to teach kids in school how to be successful. Conforming to social norms is a part of being successful. We might not like it, but it is something that will better prepare them for the real world.

[DaddyTorgo]

Originally Posted by Warhammer

I'm not sure we're driving all the good ones out, but the ones coming up by and large are not as good as the ones leaving.

That said, I think we handcuff ourselves somewhat. I remember going to school and watching kids threatened with ISS/OSS. In both cases it was a joke, those being threatened looked at it as a vacation. They didn't care. But, what other options for discipline did the school have?

I for one would have made them clean the bathrooms, but then you would get hit with cruel & unusual punishment, but knowing the bathrooms at the schools I went to, they wouldn't do it again.

Very good points.

[I. J. Reilly]

Originally Posted by Warhammer

It's not what I'm arguing. My point is that you put the talented/gifted kids in a class by themselves so they can push each other. It also means the kids can all have the most qualified teacher to teach (let's face it, some teachers are better with advanced students, some are better with remedial, and others do best with "standard" students). Those that need remedial help are put in the remedial class so they can all learn at their pace. This is a more efficient use of resources in schools.

For those concerned about kids getting to know one another, not all classes need to be setup this way. Gym, music, and other non-core cirriculum courses can be mixed.

I think the fatal flaw in this approach is when do you split the kids into the different rooms? Kids develop at different rates; one could easily appear remedial at 7 and advanced by 10. Even if there is annual testing or some other method to ensure that the children are at the correct level each year I don’t think this system would work. Your initial point is very valid, kids just don’t learn as well in a classroom with a lot of distractions. So that 7 year old who spends three years in the remedial classroom is almost never going to be able to catch up. So we would ultimately be locking this kid into an education/career path at the age of 7. That just doesn’t seem right to me.