Posts: 15,842
Threads: 95
Joined: May 2025
[quote kj]>>There may be problems, but finding what they are and correcting will not come from this sort of one step better than anecdotal report and studies.
I think they need to do more experimentation, lol. There's only so much you can do when researching such complex questions. It's not going to be like a physics experiment. kj.
No, it is not going to be like a physics experiment. But cherry-picking data to support an agenda is not going to help bring about any improvement either. That approach will lead to choices made on bad information and prejudice, not what may be best for the children.
Posts: 10,234
Threads: 213
Joined: May 2025
>>No, it is not going to be like a physics experiment. But cherry-picking data to support an agenda is not going to help bring about any improvement either. That approach will lead to choices made on bad information and prejudice, not what may be best for the children.
I don't think usa today explained what the author of the study had done very well. I'm pretty sure I know what was done, and it's not "cherry picking" data. That wouldn't pass muster in any journal. Heck, that wouldn't fly for a masters paper at a state university. Fact is, I wouldn't want to bet which would be better for those kids. How do you think it feels to know your "parents" are being paid to keep you? Worse than you think, I would guess. kj.
Posts: 15,842
Threads: 95
Joined: May 2025
So how different is a foster care support payment from child support in a divorce settlement? Given the number of parents who have refused to pay or on receiving their child support used it for themselves, not the child involved, it can not be any worse overall.
As for you being "pretty sure", well I do not find that real encouraging. In addition the report was done by an economics professor, not someone in sociology or psychology. A telling quote from a commentator on the study is, "He says some kids, for their own safety, need to be removed from their families, but in marginal cases of abuse, more should be done to keep them together." But who gets to determine what is a "marginal case"? USA Today may not have described the study well, but there had to be some sort of subjective criteria as opposed to objective criteria involved in determining who was removed from the subject population. And that is going to skew the results.
About all I can see consistent in the results is that children raised in a stable environment are going to do better. But that applies also in staying with family or being fostered.
Posts: 10,234
Threads: 213
Joined: May 2025
>>And that is going to skew the results.
It's likely that _including_ that data would have skewed the results. As I see it, he's looking at a certain population or a group with certain characteristics. Similar to looking at "people ages 40-60", etc. I would guess he had criteria for the exclusion of certain cases, before he started looking at the data. Nevertheless, I'm not saying this, or any other study, is perfect truth. It's just something to consider. Even the researcher says more study is needed (as usual). But if you're waiting for perfect data, you'll wait forever.
>>But who gets to determine what is a "marginal case"?
Case workers _have_ to determine things like this, every day. Just because a case can't be made based on some perfectly objective criteria doesn't mean a decision doesn't have to be made.
In short, I would think in some cases one might decide, "this kid's family situation is somewhat abusive, but it may still be better than foster care." Nothing irrational about that. It would be irrational to think foster care has no faults.
>>About all I can see consistent in the results is that children raised in a stable environment are going to do better.
Stable is only _part_ of a good environment for children. I think it is fair to say the environment of the FLDS kids was unusually stable, but still pretty messed up.
