Anonymous #1 3w

I think the children are to blame sometimes. Neglectful parenting and poor education isn’t always an excuse but I do think that the no child left behind thing that the bush administration passed has a lot to do with it because people are graduating and moving to the next grade when they really should’ve been held back.

4

Anonymous #2 3w

Point to me a child that was educated by their parents and within a good school system with avid support on every level that still has zero literacy skills. It’s not children’s fault they aren’t being taught, no child left behind and the abandonment of phonics for a decade fucked them up on top of being raised in a world where tech literacy is assumed, iPad kids instead of parenting, and clickbait social media algorithm farms are the norm

5

Anonymous #1 3w

I can point to the opposite though. There are plenty of children that despite having horrible parenting and horrible schooling, are able to be successful, literate, and completely functional. No child left behind did a lot of damage, but some of the blame can go to the kids. If a child can I have a horrible home environment and a horrible school environment and still be able to come out on top, there shouldn’t be that much of an excuse for other kids.

3

Anonymous #2 3w

Oh wow there’s at least like 3 fallacies in this comment alone. Sure, there are kids who don’t put in any effort to their school. But they were taught they don’t have to in order to graduate, and parent’s neglect taught them graduation was important, not learning. The systems failed the children who chose to not be involved too.

5

Anonymous #1 3w

I may have worded my comment incorrectly because I think you missed the point of what I was trying to say. There are kids that are doing amazing despite horrible parenting and were failed by their education system. I’m not saying that every kid that has those issues is going to be successful, I’m saying that SOME kids that are unsuccessful are being excused because of their poor education and poor upbringing when in reality SOME kids should be able to be successful regardless.

1

Anonymous #2 3w

In those cases, some blame should be put on the children.

1

Anonymous #2 3w

And I’m saying that’s survivorship bias, just word fallacy, and faulty generalization just off the top of my head. Children succeeding despite the failing system doesn’t mean the kids failing in that system are choosing to not be successful. Kids’ brains are hardwired to learn. It takes a lot to break that so they choose not to. The literacy crisis is NOT being fueled by kids who choose not to learn and to say otherwise is abhorrent

0

Anonymous #1 3w

It’s not survivorship bias at all and none of the logical fallacies you said apply to my comment, claim, or point at all. I said SOME kids are at fault, I didn’t say as a whole that all children are to blame for a literacy crisis. I said that there are definitely some kids that are capable of overcoming the difficulties that they are experiencing and are choosing to engage in activities that are detrimental to their overall success.

1

Anonymous #1 3w

It would be faulty generalization if I said that because of a few successful children overcoming their hardships, every child should be blamed for the literacy crisis, but I didn’t say that. I said that there are SOME children (mostly tweens and teens) that are to blame for making poor choices. If we want to talk about logical fallacies, you completely strawmanned my argument.

1

Anonymous #1 3w

Buzzword buzzword buzzword sahur

0

Anonymous #3 3w

he doesn’t actually know what the logical fallacies he accused me of using actually mean.

0

Anonymous #2 3w

Forgot to comment this earlier but the same thing applies with just-world fallacy as well. That would apply if I didn’t say “some,” but I did so you just end up looking like a person who watched a single youtube video on logical fallacies because you lost a debate on tiktok live and are now just spamming words that you don’t know the full meaning of.

0

Anonymous #2 3w

Survivorship bias- focusing on the successful children while ignoring the failing children Just world fallacy- assuming the world is fair and that all children could succeed if they just tried harder. It’s also: Anecdotal fallacy- applying a few known successful cases instead of systemic failings, fundamental attribution error by blaming the children’s character instead of the system, and false equivalence by assuming all children face the same obstacles out of and within our failing systems

0

Anonymous #2 3w

It’s just genuinely disgusting you want to fight tooth and nail blaming literal children on the literacy crisis instead of the generations of adults actively fucking failing them. Why don’t you fight this hard to fix the fucking issues that caused this?

0

Anonymous #1 3w

I’m not blaming ALL children, I’m saying some teens can be at fault here, but If you read my original comment, I particularly pointed out how detrimental no child left behind was. Also what do you want me to do to fix the root of the issue. I’m not a politician.

1

Anonymous #2 3w

Right. But it’s maybe, MAYBE 2% of kids are illiterate by choice. MAYBE. Why are you basing the 98% of the suffering kids off the 2%?

0

Anonymous #1 3w

First of all, you’re pulling numbers out of your ass. Second of all, not that many children and teens are illiterate to begin with. When we say literacy crisis, we don’t necessarily mean a child is illiterate, we mean that children and teens are reading and writing at levels far below what they should be for their age. For children and teens that are completely illiterate, which is less that 1 percent of the U.S., it is never their fault.

0

Anonymous #2 3w

Functional illiteracy, which 21 percent of adults suffer from and 25 percent of people aged 16-24 suffer from, is different than complete illiteracy and is what we’re talking about when we address the literacy crisis. Out of the roughly 23% of people that are functionally illiterate, there is a percentage that is the fault if self made choices.

0

Anonymous #2 3w

A good change would be to reverse the damage done by no child left behind and to not pass kids to the next grade if they’re not ready. We should incentivize schools that demonstrate the highest literacy rates with additional funding. This would make schools more inclined to teach better and it would incentivize children that make bad choices to stop it out of fear of being held back for multiple years in a row. As for the parenting stuff, we need to get rid of class disparity.

0

Anonymous #4 3w

literally no one said that 💀

1

Anonymous #2 3w

Yes, we are talking about functional literacy. Which plays a particular role in media literacy. Which in the age of social media being the major news source for these people is a very troubling statistic. Moral of the story, you’re being a jackass and blaming CHILDREN for the failure of the adults around them. You’re a horrible person

0

Anonymous #2 3w

You’re right here, we shouldn’t be dragging kids along to boost school’s graduation rates and adjusting grades so test scores look better. The issue here with basing funding off success is that the schools with the most unsuccessful kids are the ones who usually need funding the most. The kids are failing because they have no money for resources, further cutting them off makes it worse. Look up the corridor of shame in SC (dafuski island specifically) to see this in action.

1

Anonymous #1 3w

You don’t know enough about me or my life to call me a horrible person. Me saying that there is a portion of people that make bad decisions resulting in them being functionally illiterate is just factual. I didn’t say all children so stop spinning my argument.

1

Anonymous #2 3w

Seeing a conversation about systemic failures and blaming children is something a bad person does, sorry fam

1

Anonymous #1 3w

I’m not suggesting to cut funding for schools that don’t display high literacy rates, I’m suggesting increasing funding all around and then adding additional funding to the schools with the highest literacy rates which would incentivize better teaching.

1

Anonymous #1 3w

I’m blaming some children, not all and to act like teens are perfect and are entirely products of their environment is disingenuous. You don’t know me well enough to call me a bad person and if you actually understood my argument and maybe knew my anecdotal experiences and where i’m coming from, you might not say that but I try not to bring up anecdotal experiences while making claims.

1

Anonymous #2 3w

But the amount of children who this is a choice for is so insignificantly small it’s a moot point. Don’t take away from the conversation about the systemic issues failing a majority of these children

1

Anonymous #2 3w

But we already have this system and it hasn’t incentivized better teaching. It’s incentivized falsifying grades, pushing failing children along, and allowed the gap between higher income school districts and lower incoming districts to grow. This is already the system. It’s failed. Success based funding is not the solution. It’s the current system that has FAILED

1

Anonymous #1 3w

You don’t know the percentage though.

1

Anonymous #2 3w

Ok then let me put it to you this way There is never a reason a child with nothing going on their lives to just CHOOSE to not do school at all, not engage with reading or learning to any capacity, to result in functional illiteracy.

1

Anonymous #1 3w

No we don’t have this system. the system we have is based on grades and graduation rates which is not what i suggested. I suggested basing funding increases based proficiency instead paired with actually holding students back that aren’t ready to move on.

1

Anonymous #2 3w

And why do you think we base it off grades and graduation rates? That’s how we measure proficiency. How we measure proficiency needs to change, yes, but children failing to meet the new standard system due to lack of school funding and access to resources will still be the vast reality. This cannot be the system we base funding on

1

Anonymous #1 3w

Grades and graduation rates are not good ways to measure proficiency at all so that does need to change and when I say based on proficiency, I’m not talking about grades or graduation rates as the criteria. As for the funding, increasing funding all around and then incentivizing districts with additional funding based on actual proficiency isn’t a bad idea.

1

Anonymous #2 3w

Ok we’re just talking in circles because you’re not listening to a thing I say. Goodnight buddy

1

Anonymous #1 3w

Because you keep strawmanning everything I say😭.

1

Anonymous #2 3w

Obviously increasing funding is good but it's not a complete solution. In America school district funding is actually only moderately to weakly correlated to student outcomes. Also ngl everyone is to blame at least a little bit and it creates kind of a feedback loop. Parents who didn't care about their own education raise kids who don't care about their education who in turn influence the parents to care even less while also demotivating their teachers who may have been underqualified to begin with (if you look at American numeracy rates there legit probably aren't enough numerate people in the country for every teacher to be proficient in basic numerical reasoning for example), all while admins realize they can game the system to farm money and authority without doing anything for students

1

Anonymous #5 3w

That’s why I suggested other things to reverse the damages done by no child left behind like not letting students pass to the next grade if they don’t display grade level proficiency in literacy and mathematic reasoning, but I completely agree that everyoneis to blame for thand that’s the main point I want to make. Everyone has a hand in this issue.

6

Anonymous #2 3w

I do mostly agree with the sentiment however I do want to point out that blaming NCLB is overly simplistic. The act has been effectively repealed, so the ongoing drop in functional literacy must logically have other contributing factors; NCLB literally created many of the standardized metrics that we're using rn to analyze the education crisis and how to solve it, so without it the problem would be much trickier; and many major problems like students being allowed to pass without demonstrating proficiency are more related to culture (99% of American parents nowadays would be absolutely indignant at the suggestion that their child should be held back) than law

1

Anonymous #5 3w

I agree for the most part but NCLB being repealed hasn’t completely undone all the damage, but like you suggested, there is a stigma around being held back to the point where parents would rather have their kid move on even if they aren’t ready yet which needs to be addressed as a societal issue.

1

Anonymous #2 3w

What specific parts of NCLB do you see as having lasting impacts today? It wasn't a perfect bill but my personal take is that it's common to blame it for issues that fall out of its scope so I'm curious to hear your perspective

1

Anonymous #5 3w

The impacts I notice are things such as the rate of students being held back decreasing despite functional illiteracy rates increasing. The way some students are likely to pass to the next grade and or graduate even though they’re grades and work might not reflect that is a lingering consequence of NCLB. They way society views being held back as negative as opposed to sometimes necessary stems from NCLB.

1

Anonymous #2 3w

I know people that had 80+ absences AND failing grades their junior year that are still moving on to senior year as of now.

1