"I AM saying that what is considered "poor" has changed, and that the poor in America are still a hell of a lot better off than the poor anywhere else."
The stats I gave point out differences in home education levels. The students without computers are much less likely to pass the standardized testing in grade three; the students with computers counted amongst themselves all of the top achievers and many of the middle achievers. The students with no books of their own were also much more likely to fail. It goes back to resources. You and I would be capable of raising literate kids without the frills, because we know how to access the resources of our community and we have the skills to make do. These parents are not like that. They don't have the mental, emotional, or physical resources to provide a nurturing and educational environment for their kids. As a result, they're raising the next generation of working-poor and welfare-dependent adults. But give a kid access to these things at home - newspapers, books, or a computer - and suddenly their chances of meeting success skyrocket.
no subject
True. Does that mean we can effectively ignore their problems? If their children are hungry, or alone, or lacking the attention they need to stay in school, or sick with no medical care, we still have a social obligation to them. It's unconscionable that CEOs are making hundreds of times more than their lowest-paid workers. Capitalism is supposed to bring us all up. It doesn't. It's failing, badly, and the people who are being failed by it are the ones at the bottom, with people telling them they have choices and don't have to live as they do. Somebody SHOW them their choices. Somebody TEACH them how to manage. Somebody give them the necessary safety net in terms of health care so that one bad illness won't wipe out everything they have. Choices require a baseline. They require that the person believe they can make a difference in their own life, and they require an investment to get started - possibly a small investment of time and resumé-printing, possibly a bigger investment in moving house, but an investment. Who is helping them? (Answer: not enough people, to judge by the stats themselves.)
The stats I gave point out differences in home education levels. The students without computers are much less likely to pass the standardized testing in grade three; the students with computers counted amongst themselves all of the top achievers and many of the middle achievers. The students with no books of their own were also much more likely to fail. It goes back to resources. You and I would be capable of raising literate kids without the frills, because we know how to access the resources of our community and we have the skills to make do. These parents are not like that. They don't have the mental, emotional, or physical resources to provide a nurturing and educational environment for their kids. As a result, they're raising the next generation of working-poor and welfare-dependent adults. But give a kid access to these things at home - newspapers, books, or a computer - and suddenly their chances of meeting success skyrocket.