Sponsor Message:
Non Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
More Taxes For Pre-School?  
User currently offlineAerospaceFan From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Posted (8 years 2 months 4 weeks 1 day 19 hours ago) and read 1157 times:

Here in California, there's a measure up for consideration that would raise funds so that children from families who otherwise would not be able to afford pre-school could be enrolled in one at taxpayer's expense.

I instinctively recoil from this measure, because I believe that family issues are the predominant influence on early childhood achievement. I do not believe, as the proponents of this measure urge, that we must enroll all children in pre-school "so that American children can be competitive in the world today".

In this day and age of high demands on public funding, why are we interested in increasing the burden on the state? Why not, for example, pay down our highway construction obligations first?

Perhaps those outside the state may not know, but our infrastructure is not what it should be, for reasons relating to the fact that money for highway projects have been "borrowed" for social programs and other needs. Only now are some of these funds being repaid.

The issue is not settled in my mind, and any considered comments on this issue would be welcomed.

[Edited 2006-01-19 01:55:39]

30 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineAirCop From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 1, posted (8 years 2 months 4 weeks 1 day 17 hours ago) and read 1147 times:

Numerous Studies are out there showing children that attend pre-school and all day kindergarten out perform their peers (those that did not attend these programs) in elementary schools. This is one of the reason why Arizona is starting an all day kindergarten program statewide.

User currently offlineFalcon84 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 2, posted (8 years 2 months 4 weeks 1 day 17 hours ago) and read 1144 times:

Yeah, Aerospacefan, it's such a waste to make sure the poorest of our kids get off the the right start with education, isn't it?

Unbelievable. That's one reason our kids are further behind than most the world-people like you refuse to fund education on any level.


User currently offlinePope From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 3, posted (8 years 2 months 4 weeks 1 day 17 hours ago) and read 1136 times:

Children are behind because parents aren't educating them.

Tonight I sat with my 4 year-old daughter at the dinner table and she told me about the 3 periods in Mesozoic era and the two major theories explaining the extinction of the dinosaurs. After dinner we (my wife, my daughter and I) searched the internet for about an hour reading up on related matters.

My daughter goes to a private pre-school that costs about $5,000 per year. The State of Florida has a public pre-K education program that started this year. I doubt that 99.9% of the kids in the state program (which by the way spends about $6,000 per pupil) could have the same sort of conversation.

I don't care if the State of Florida spent $12,000 per pupil on pre-K education, the results won't be different. Unless parents spend time with their children and put their children first no amount of government spending will ever solve the problems we have with our education system.

I would bet that less than 25% of parents sat down with their children and asked them what they learned in school today and explored related topics. It is not the school's job to raise your children. It is the parents. I hope that one day the same liberals that so vocally advocate a pro-choice agenda when it comes to having children, adopt a pro-responsibility agenda when it comes to raising them.


User currently offlineMD-90 From United States of America, joined Jan 2000, 8494 posts, RR: 12
Reply 4, posted (8 years 2 months 4 weeks 1 day 17 hours ago) and read 1136 times:

No, for a bunch of reasons.

1. More taxes means more government control of people, which is bad.

2. Tax-funded daycare would compete with private businesses that do a far better job than the states do with their public schools. Why pay for a quality church-run preschool when you can get it "free" from the state?

3. It will cost a FORTUNE. And of course the program will expand. Caregiver-child ratios are much lower for daycares than they are for public schools.

4. Daycare and preschool is a necessary evil. It is a proven fact that the best place for young children is at home with a parent, usually the mother or someone from the extended family, like an aunt or a grandparent. Making daycare "free" will lower the cost, and of course more people will eagerly take the goods offered for votes in return.

Quoting Falcon84 (Reply 2):
Yeah, Aerospacefan, it's such a waste to make sure the poorest of our kids get off the the right start with education, isn't it?

It's wrong to take money from some productive people and give away free goodies to political groups of people.

Quoting AerospaceFan (Thread starter):
I do not believe, as the proponents of this measure urge, that we must enroll all children in pre-school "so that American children can be competitive in the world today".

The best way to do that would be to shut down the cesspools of corrupt indoctrination that comprise the majority of the public education system. What was better, a state-controlled Aeroflot, like the state-controlled (increasingly federal-controlled) schools, or a free market for education, which has premium services (any good Asian/European first class), or education for everybody (Southwest, Ryanair)?


User currently offlineFalcon84 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 5, posted (8 years 2 months 4 weeks 1 day 16 hours ago) and read 1126 times:

Quoting Pope (Reply 3):
Children are behind because parents aren't educating them.

Oh, I didn't know most of our kids were home-schooled, Pope?

They're behind for lots of reasons: some parents don't care; many communities don't care; they don't have enough tools to get ahead. It's not just parents, it's a combination of things. Money is NOT the entire answer, but you show me anything that can operate when there isn't ANY money.

Getting our kids a head start and into good study and social habits at a young age is very important. I think it should be way more important than the highways, for God's sake.

Quoting Pope (Reply 3):
Tonight I sat with my 4 year-old daughter at the dinner table and she told me about the 3 periods in Mesozoic era and the two major theories explaining the extinction of the dinosaurs. After dinner we (my wife, my daughter and I) searched the internet for about an hour reading up on related matters.

Sorry, but if you're teaching your daughter about the Mesozoic era when she's 4, she's not, with all respect, having a normal childhood.

Quoting Pope (Reply 3):
I doubt that 99.9% of the kids in the state program (which by the way spends about $6,000 per pupil) could have the same sort of conversation.

I wouldn't WANT to have that conversation with my 6 year old, Pope! Like it's a big freaking deal if every 4 year old doesn't know the Mesozoic era! I think I'd rather send my kid to the public pre-K, where they're not asked to be little Einsteins, but are allowed to be kids first.

Quoting MD-90 (Reply 4):
It's wrong to take money from some productive people and give away free goodies to political groups of people.

Ah, now 4 year olds are a political group. Stick to defending Robert E. Lee, MD-90, you have some expertise in that, I guess.


User currently offlineMaverickM11 From United States of America, joined Apr 2000, 16931 posts, RR: 48
Reply 6, posted (8 years 2 months 4 weeks 1 day 16 hours ago) and read 1120 times:

Quoting Pope (Reply 3):
The State of Florida has a public pre-K education program that started this year. I doubt that 99.9% of the kids in the state program (which by the way spends about $6,000 per pupil)

Public education, particularly in Florida, is shit. I always oppose any additional cent contributed toward public education until the funds currently allocated are used correctly and efficiently. I would rather see funds diverted from current public education programs in CA diverted to this preschool project rather than adding more taxes. Preschool for everyone is a nice idea, but it won't help you when you're subjected to the atrocious (and now thanks to the Florida courts, univerally and equally horrid for everyone) public school system.



E pur si muove -Galileo
User currently offlineFalcon84 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 7, posted (8 years 2 months 4 weeks 1 day 16 hours ago) and read 1117 times:

Quoting MaverickM11 (Reply 6):
I always oppose any additional cent contributed toward public education until the funds currently allocated are used correctly and efficiently.

Which, no matter what the schools do, will be never, because you simply don't want to fund education. You'll always find something to say "no, you're not doing good enough."

And, thanks in part to you, we're putting out under-educated kids, because of your refusal to support education in any way.

Sorry, but that's the truth, Maverick. Those kind of people are everywhere, and they have contributed to the ruiniation of public schools. In fact, you WANT to see them destroyed, in my estimation. More's the pity.


User currently offlineAerospaceFan From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 8, posted (8 years 2 months 4 weeks 1 day 15 hours ago) and read 1110 times:

Quoting Falcon84 (Reply 7):
Which, no matter what the schools do, will be never, because you simply don't want to fund education. You'll always find something to say "no, you're not doing good enough."

But, with all due respect, we are funding education. It's not a question funding or defunding education; it's a question of why it is that, when throwing money at a problem only seems to result in worse results, we should nevertheless increase the rate at which it is thrown.


User currently offlineMD-90 From United States of America, joined Jan 2000, 8494 posts, RR: 12
Reply 9, posted (8 years 2 months 4 weeks 1 day 14 hours ago) and read 1107 times:

Quoting Falcon84 (Reply 5):
Sorry, but if you're teaching your daughter about the Mesozoic era when she's 4, she's not, with all respect, having a normal childhood.

I think that's a wonderful case of exceptionalism. You sound like you want to drag everyone down to the same egalitarian level.

Quoting Falcon84 (Reply 5):
Ah, now 4 year olds are a political group.

"Single working moms" sure as hell are a political group for the Democrats.

Quoting Falcon84 (Reply 7):
Which, no matter what the schools do, will be never, because you simply don't want to fund education. You'll always find something to say "no, you're not doing good enough."

You need to read this book and learn why compulsory education will never be effective when compared to educational freedom:



Education: Free & Compulsory by Murray Rothbard succinctly explains in 58 pages exactly what is wrong with public schools.

John Taylor Gatto's magnum opus, The Underground History of American Education, is available online for free:



http://johntaylorgatto.com/chapters/index.htm

He was named New York City Teacher of the Year three times, and was then named New York State Teacher of the Year. He knows what he's talking about.


User currently offlineMaverickM11 From United States of America, joined Apr 2000, 16931 posts, RR: 48
Reply 10, posted (8 years 2 months 4 weeks 1 day 14 hours ago) and read 1105 times:

Quoting Falcon84 (Reply 7):
And, thanks in part to you, we're putting out under-educated kids, because of your refusal to support education in any way.

You're completely divorced from reality. What has funding done in the last several decades? And how has student performance changed in the last few decades? If there was any correlation between the two I'd support more funding, and I've always said that. However the Democrats and their teacher union bed fellows have completely prevented that from happening. The teachers are now paid more than ever, the costs per student are higher than just about any other nation on earth, and still we have some of the dumbest kids on the planet, in spite of the endlessly increasing funding. Maybe it's not the funding. Strike that, it ISNT the funding that's the problem.

[Edited 2006-01-19 06:49:10]


E pur si muove -Galileo
User currently offlinePope From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 11, posted (8 years 2 months 4 weeks 1 day 10 hours ago) and read 1094 times:

Quoting Falcon84 (Reply 5):
Oh, I didn't know most of our kids were home-schooled, Pope?

In typical liberal fashion you accept the notion that educating your kids is primarily a government role. Sorry but if you choose to have kids, educating them is first and foremost the parent's role. Of course gov't can help but you can't abdicate the responsibility to anyone else. Put down the remote control, watch a little less football on TV and participate.

My daughter isn't home schooled. However, my wife and I do take an active role in her education in several ways. My wife volunteers every week at her school. Every night we discuss what her day was like at school, what did she learn? How does it apply? Does she understand the matter? Who are her friends? Is she having any problems?

A couple of months ago at her first parent teacher conference (attended by both my wife and me) the teacher pointed out that our daughter's behavior had changed suddenly in the past couple of weeks and it was affecting her learning.

Coincidently, I had just started an executive education program that had me going to the local university several nights a week instead of coming home for dinner every night as was previously the rule. In addition my work travel schedule had me off to Europe twice in three weeks.

Well I had to drop out of the exec ed program and modified my work travel because nothing comes ahead of my daughter. The very next week we got a call from the teacher saying that she was amazed at the difference in our daughter's behavior. It's incredible what a parent's active participation in their child's life has on their school work.

Quoting Falcon84 (Reply 5):
Money is NOT the entire answer, but you show me anything that can operate when there isn't ANY money.

That argument is a red herring. First of all spending on education has grown at almost an unprecedented rate under the current administration. The last time I checked (before the 2004 election) the figures were staggaring.

Second of all, I can demonstrate to you that there is little if any relationship between aggregate education spending and results. The US is at the very top of the world of per pupil education spending and our result are no way related. But let's dig deeper, let's look at the DC school system. I believe that it leads the nation on per pupil spending at a figure of about $12,000 and is toward the very bottom on academic results. Clearly education is an issue where throwing money at the problem is NOT the answer.

Why are liberals so against the notion that a little bit of parental involvment goes a lot further than money thrown at the problem. Once again, you guys love to be pro-choice but demonstrate that you are anti-responsibility.

Quoting Falcon84 (Reply 5):
Sorry, but if you're teaching your daughter about the Mesozoic era when she's 4, she's not, with all respect, having a normal childhood.

The school's curriculum includes it and she loves it. I was blown away last night by the conversation. She talked about evolution, alternative theories for the extinction events and how the dug for "fossils" in the sand box during recess. The kids are having an absolute blast. I see no reason why we shouldn't encourage it.

But once again you illustrate my problem with liberals - their absolute refusal to set the performance bar high. No way. You guys love to set the bar low so that you can feel good if you meet the goal. I'm a firm believer that all abled bodies humans have incredible potential if that potential is nurtured. Set the bar high and watch as kids meet and exceed those high goals.


User currently offlineMD-90 From United States of America, joined Jan 2000, 8494 posts, RR: 12
Reply 12, posted (8 years 2 months 4 weeks 23 hours ago) and read 1085 times:

Quoting Pope (Reply 11):
Why are liberals so against the notion that a little bit of parental involvment goes a lot further than money thrown at the problem. Once again, you guys love to be pro-choice but demonstrate that you are anti-responsibility.

Because parental involvement doesn't require the government, which means no reasons for government spending, government taxation, government control, or increase of government power.

In this regard, Bush and most Republicans are pretty liberal themselves.


User currently offlineFalcon84 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 13, posted (8 years 2 months 4 weeks 17 hours ago) and read 1079 times:

Quoting MD-90 (Reply 9):
I think that's a wonderful case of exceptionalism. You sound like you want to drag everyone down to the same egalitarian level.

Fancy words, MD-90, but I see no need to make 4-year olds study such stuff. At 4 they've basically been talking for a year, and are just learning basic, like ABC-in other words, they need to become kids first before they become the next Einstein. Learning is great, but if it comes at the expense of letting be kids, then in that's not healthy, imho. There's plenty of time to discuss the Mesozoic era when they're a bit older.

Quoting AerospaceFan (Reply 8):
But, with all due respect, we are funding education.

With all respect, we are NOT funding schools. Half the school in this area are dead broke, except for basic operating expenses: they cannot upgrade the ciriculum with new books; they cannot install computers to help kids learn; they can't even fix some building maintanence issues, because the funds aren't there. Many have cut out bus services, after-school and extra-cirricular progrms, including sports, becasue there is no money for them. Most run on a shoestring, and I guess that's what Maverick and you would prefer, I guess.

Quoting MD-90 (Reply 9):
"Single working moms" sure as hell are a political group for the Democrats.

And you have a problem with that? Fine, make them mom's the politico's here, but don't drag the kids into it.

Quoting MD-90 (Reply 9):
Education: Free & Compulsory by Murray Rothbard succinctly explains in 58 pages exactly what is wrong with public schools.

In 58 pages, he's going to tell us what's wrong with EVERY school? Uh, OK. Yeah. Right.

Quoting MaverickM11 (Reply 10):
Strike that, it ISNT the funding that's the problem.

It is PART of the problem, when districts can't even make it through a school year with what little money that have. As I have said, money is NOT the only answer, but it is part of the problem for far too many communities and their schools. Pope is right that many parents' don't give a damn about the education of their kids. I and my wife are two who do; you are right that many-not all, but many-of the people running our schools are hacks who have no business being there, as is the same with some, but nowhere close to all teachers. But honestly, Maverick, if a district barely has money to run the basics, and not even do that in many cases, you have to admit that, in a world where everything cost $$$, having enough money to effectively operate IS an issue. It simply is.

My beef is you seemingly want to cut off the money altogether, and let the schools become even worse. That isn't the answer, either. Money plays a role in how well/poorly a district can operate. You know that is true, but you seemingly deny that. Maybe I misunderstand you, but that's what it seems like.

Quoting Pope (Reply 11):
In typical liberal fashion you accept the notion that educating your kids is primarily a government role.

Pope, stop the "typical liberal fashion" bullshit, will you? I'm seeing this from the point of view of a parent, who has three very smart children, all do well, and they have to do it in run down, antiquated buildings-part of the HS is over 100 years old, and the state has said it could be condemned, because it's so old.

I'm looking at it as a parent who cannot afford private schools, and becasue I cannot, I want our public schools to be the best they can be. Unfortunately, they can't even get operating levy's passed here, so the schools can barely manage what they have. It has nothing to do with "liberalism", that which you blame everything for. It has to do with wanting the best for my kids, and all the kids who are attending school in my community.

The fact you fall back on such political horsecrap is all I need to know from you. You cannot escape your political slant even for a moment.

Quoting Pope (Reply 11):
Sorry but if you choose to have kids, educating them is first and foremost the parent's role.

Sorry, but I have a full-time job, as does my wife, you see. I mean, it may be alien to someone like you, but we have to work to simply get by, so, whether you or I like it or not, I have to leave the three R's up to the schools. I can help them with their homework; give them advice on problems they might be having at school, and make sure they behave and are the best students they can be, but in the end, they go to a public school. I know that makes you want to hurl, but too freaking bad. That's life.

Quoting Pope (Reply 11):
Put down the remote control, watch a little less football on TV and participate.

Like I need to be lectured by you. How dare you be so arrogant. Actually, with the schedule I keep, which is working 1330-2130, my wife does most of the follow-up, but I do my part when I can. My 6 year old does his homework after breakfast every morning with me. I discuss what the other two are doing and if they're having any troubles/issues at school, and neither one seemingly do most of the time.

I do participate, as does my wife. We go to parent-teacher meetings. I'll even take a half-day off at work if needed to go, because it is important to us.

So, keep the lecture for parents' who really need it, OK?

Quoting Pope (Reply 11):
A couple of months ago at her first parent teacher conference (attended by both my wife and me) the teacher pointed out that our daughter's behavior had changed suddenly in the past couple of weeks and it was affecting her learning.

Sounds familiar.  Smile My 6 year old was diagnosed with ADD about a month into the school year. Helps to get that opinion from a doctor who has ADD, and who has a dauaghter who has it.  Smile He's on a small dose of Ritilan-only used DURING school. Plus he got reading glasses right before that. Since then, he's just taken off in 1st grade, and is doing very well. At that age, kids can get distracted quite easily, that's for sure.

Quoting Pope (Reply 11):

Coincidently, I had just started an executive education program that had me going to the local university several nights a week instead of coming home for dinner every night as was previously the rule.

Welcome to my world. My wife goes to work at 3am. I go to work at 130pm. I get home at 10pm. I've had one summer where I had a normal 8:30-5 schedule in the 18 years I've been with CO, and it was the one summer where we actually (gasp!) had a normal family life! I could participate in homework assignments; I could go out in the evenings and do things with the kids and my wife. But the norm is I get the kids off to school in the morning, and they're in bed when I get home. But that's the way it is.

Quoting Pope (Reply 11):
Well I had to drop out of the exec ed program and modified my work travel because nothing comes ahead of my daughter.

Good for you! Unfortunately, where I work there are no "normal" schedules. If you're full-time, you either start at like 4 or 5am, or 12:30-1:00pm. That's just the life in an airline hub. If I could get an 8-5 shift, believe me I would.

Quoting Pope (Reply 11):
First of all spending on education has grown at almost an unprecedented rate under the current administration.

The current Administration doesn't vote for the local school levy's, Pope. What George Bush has done-or not done-doesn't affect trying to get a levy passed by the public. Whatever they've spent sure isn't relevant in these parts.

Quoting Pope (Reply 11):
Why are liberals so against the notion that a little bit of parental involvment goes a lot further than money thrown at the problem.

And why are conservatives so against the idea that no matter how much a parent is involved, if the schools can't function properly, it won't matter in the long run? Most kids aren't blessed to be in rich communities, and you don't seem to grasp the notion that many, many districts can't even operate effectively becasue there is NO money. Parental involvement is crucial, I agree, but if the school system goes belly-up, no one wins. Money to operate effectively IS important. You dismiss it altogether.

Quoting Pope (Reply 11):
But once again you illustrate my problem with liberals - their absolute refusal to set the performance bar high.

Again, cut the utter bullshit, Pope. This has nothing to do with me being "liberal". I'd rather have a 4-year old being a normal kid, then being stuffed with fact that aren't important at that age.

As for performance, O Conservative one: my daughter, who is a sophomore in High School, has an overall GPA of 3.85. She's already starting to hear from colleges and universities, and, if she continues as she is, will most likely get a scholarship somewhere. Right now, she's interested in two fields: teaching American History to HS students (as her grandad did), and Marine Biology. Pretty far apart, but she's interested in both. The only downfall if she chooses the latter is she may end up at Miami of Florida or USC, neither for whom I could root for.  Big grin

My oldest son is in 7th grade. His GPA, in Honors classes, is about 2.95, which, when translated into the regular cirriculum, would translate in to a 3.95GPA. Right now, he says he wants to be a Master Chef!  Silly But I think by the time he gets to his junior year in HS, he'll change that-although he's going to learn to be a good cook no matter what.

My youngest is in first grade. The "bar" was raised for us when he was diagnosed with ADD, which can be a handful. We don't give him the Ritalin at home, it's specifically for school. Since then, his reading has shot up, he's had few "yellow's and red's" indicationg behavior problems (he loves to talk), and, as his teacher told us in our meeting in December, he's just taken off socially and academically.

So don't lecture me about raising the bar. If you want your child to be a Little Einstein, it's your daughter. I'd rather my kids be kids first, and learn about whatever period they can learn about some other time.

I take objection to you carte-blance statement that somehow "liberals" are bad parents. I know what I'd like to tell you for that one, but 1. You're not worth it, and 2. I don't want to get banned.

If you want to feel smugly superior to me, go right ahead. But don't ever question my parenting or my interest in my children's educational endeavors. They're doing quite well for "liberals".

I'll take my 6 year old being a kid over some period in ancient history every day.


User currently offlinePope From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 14, posted (8 years 2 months 4 weeks 17 hours ago) and read 1075 times:

Falcon you need to chill out because I didn't accuse anyone of being a bad parent. You have this notion that everything has come easy for me. My wife and I have made choices in our life to put certain things first. I got out of public accounting because the lifestyle was destroying our marriage.

When I made that choice I took a 40% cut in pay. I ended up going back to a job I had during college, a job where my very first task was to take out the garbage. Over the years I've busted my ass and finally got promoted to President of the company.

We held off on having kids. That was our choice. You apparently decided to have 3 kids. That's your choice, but please don't whine about how hard you have to work to support your family when you decided to have a big family. Once again, liberals are all about maximizing their choices and then making everyone else responsible for those decisions.

That being said, by all appearances you seem to care for and be tremendously involved with your kids lives. From what you are telling me your kids are successful. My argument is that their success is a result of your participation in their lives and not because of the amount of money that is spent. Your own statements even prove that fact as you lament the financial condition of their schools.

There are certain facts that are indisputable. US spending per pupil is at the top of the world, yet our test scores are middle to lower half. Spending in DC is at the top of the US and that school system is toward the very bottom.

So if you want to argue that increase spending results in better score, provide facts to support that premise because all the evidence I can find point toward the opposite conclusion.

As for this being a liberal versus conservative thing - it is the liberals who continue to advocate more spending on education, spending that disporportionately goes to administration and not teachers. While I know you love to blame absolutely everything that goes wrong in the world on the GOP Congress, what did test scores do under the 50 years of democratic control of the Congress? Did they improve? No. Can you name the last time total spending on education decreased in the US? Can you name the last time that aggregate spending on a per pupil basis decreased in the US?

As most issues, the solution has to include personal responsibility. No amount of money is an adequate substitute for the attention of a parent and their involvement in their kid's life.


User currently offlineHalls120 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 15, posted (8 years 2 months 4 weeks 17 hours ago) and read 1073 times:

Quoting Falcon84 (Reply 2):
Yeah, Aerospacefan, it's such a waste to make sure the poorest of our kids get off the the right start with education, isn't it?

Unbelievable. That's one reason our kids are further behind than most the world-people like you refuse to fund education on any level.

Throwing more money at the problem isn't the solution. We already know this, thanks to places like DC where the amount of money spent to educate each student is among the highest in the nation, and the test scores of DC students are abysmally low.

Quoting Pope (Reply 3):
I don't care if the State of Florida spent $12,000 per pupil on pre-K education, the results won't be different. Unless parents spend time with their children and put their children first no amount of government spending will ever solve the problems we have with our education system.

 checkmark 

Quoting Falcon84 (Reply 5):
They're behind for lots of reasons: some parents don't care; many communities don't care; they don't have enough tools to get ahead. It's not just parents, it's a combination of things. Money is NOT the entire answer, but you show me anything that can operate when there isn't ANY money.

Since when is the responsibility of the "community" to educate children? Parents are first and foremost responsible for their children's education.

And no one is suggesting that we stop spending taxpayer money on education. Public schools are a vital and necessary part of our educational system.

Quoting AerospaceFan (Reply 8):
But, with all due respect, we are funding education. It's not a question funding or defunding education; it's a question of why it is that, when throwing money at a problem only seems to result in worse results, we should nevertheless increase the rate at which it is thrown.

This is a question people like Falcon never seem to want to answer. Hell, in DC, the superintendent of schools announced that close to 25% of their teachers were going to be fired in three months because they weren't certified. They can save their jobs if they become certified before then. But why are that many uncertified teachers in the classroom?

Quoting Pope (Reply 11):
My daughter isn't home schooled. However, my wife and I do take an active role in her education in several ways. My wife volunteers every week at her school. Every night we discuss what her day was like at school, what did she learn? How does it apply? Does she understand the matter? Who are her friends? Is she having any problems?

Same here. Both of our kids were in a parent-participation pre-school, and we both volunteered in their elementary school classrooms.

Quoting Falcon84 (Reply 13):
Half the school in this area are dead broke, except for basic operating expenses: they cannot upgrade the ciriculum with new books; they cannot install computers to help kids learn; they can't even fix some building maintanence issues, because the funds aren't there. Many have cut out bus services, after-school and extra-cirricular progrms, including sports, becasue there is no money for them. Most run on a shoestring, and I guess that's what Maverick and you would prefer, I guess.

How do you explain places like DC, with extremely high per pupil funding and bottom tier test scores? How has money helped here?

Quoting Falcon84 (Reply 13):
I'm looking at it as a parent who cannot afford private schools, and becasue I cannot, I want our public schools to be the best they can be. Unfortunately, they can't even get operating levy's passed here, so the schools can barely manage what they have. It has nothing to do with "liberalism", that which you blame everything for. It has to do with wanting the best for my kids, and all the kids who are attending school in my community.

I couldn't afford to send my kids to private school, so I made sure to make up the difference by becoming involved with my children's education. And while the suburban VA district where they went to school didn't have all the bells and whistles, they had dedicated teachers who weren't constantly whining about being underpaid, and a large number of parents who pitched in to provide the extras. Which we gladly did, because our effort and money were going directly to the education of our children.

Quoting Falcon84 (Reply 13):
Sorry, but I have a full-time job, as does my wife, you see. I mean, it may be alien to someone like you, but we have to work to simply get by, so, whether you or I like it or not, I have to leave the three R's up to the schools

Sorry, but that is a cop-out. I work full time plus, as did my ex-wife. That never stopped me from staying involved with my children's education.

Quoting Falcon84 (Reply 13):
And why are conservatives so against the idea that no matter how much a parent is involved, if the schools can't function properly, it won't matter in the long run? Most kids aren't blessed to be in rich communities, and you don't seem to grasp the notion that many, many districts can't even operate effectively because there is NO money.

Who has said that we should spend NO money on public schools? Not me. And as long as a school has four walls, a roof, books, paper, chalkboards, desks, and a teacher, it can function.....

Quoting Falcon84 (Reply 13):
I take objection to you carte-blance statement that somehow "liberals" are bad parents. I know what I'd like to tell you for that one, but 1. You're not worth it, and 2. I don't want to get banned.

Falcon, I don't think anyone is saying liberals are bad parents. Im not. Hell, my mother was and is a card carrying pinko. (Thank goodness my dad was the polar opposite) But even though my mother is a reliable lefty, she never trusted the education of her children to the public schools alone. She took us to the bookmobile before we started kindergarten, and taught each one of us to read. She drilled us incessantly on our homework, and I was more afraid of her response when I "forgot" to do my work than any of my teachers.

It all starts in the home. Sorry, I just don't buy Hillary's "It takes a village to raise a child" mantra.


User currently offlinePope From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 16, posted (8 years 2 months 4 weeks 16 hours ago) and read 1069 times:

Quoting Halls120 (Reply 15):
Sorry, I just don't buy Hillary's "It takes a village to raise a child" mantra.

Other than the above statement, I concur with what you are saying. Before I had a daughter I thought HRC was full of sh*t with this "it takes a village" bs.

Now that I am a parent, I do think that it does take a village. However, the notion of a village is not how liberals in the US view it. Village isn't government. Village is everyone in the community actively participating in raise the community's young. Far too often you've got parents who choose to have kids and then want to dump them on everyone else to raise.

When I was growing up, one of the things that kept me on the straight and narrow was that an adult would tell my parents that they saw me misbehaving. My parents would have kicked my ass if I embarrassed the family by doing something that would make an adult intervene to call me to order.

Last summer I was at the park with my daughter (3.5 years old at the time) when a couple of 10 year olds were going dropping F-bombs all over the place. I pulled them aside and asked them to watch their language as there were several young kids around. They told me to f-off.

I couldn't believe it. Had I ever spoken to an adult that way, my father would have literally killed me. (Granted I still have trouble viewing myself as an adult). Obviously these kids parents had raised their kids in a way where they had no problem speaking to adults in this manner.

What was I going to do? I waited until their parents showed back up and told them what had happened. The father couldn't have cared less. He told the kids to get in the car, they were going to get pizza.

I was in absolute awe. Clearly the village is falling apart.


User currently offlineFalcon84 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 17, posted (8 years 2 months 4 weeks 16 hours ago) and read 1066 times:

Quoting Pope (Reply 14):
That's your choice, but please don't whine about how hard you have to work to support your family when you decided to have a big family.

I didn't know 3 kids was a "big" family. That's about the average American family, Pope. To me, a "big" family is 5, 6, 10 kids. 3 is about normal. And show me where I whine about my work? I told you my hours, and the fact they're not normal so I CAN support my kids. That's not whining that's a fact, so please, again, stop your insolence. It's not doing anything constructive.

Quoting Pope (Reply 14):
Once again, liberals are all about maximizing their choices and then making everyone else responsible for those decisions.

ROTFL. How do you extrapolate that from what I said? And is EVERYTHING to people like you in a liberal/conservative light? This, to me, isn't about liberal/conservative. It's what I think is best for education. That's it. Why do you fall back on those assinine definitions. You conveniently put EVERYONE who doesn't agree with your narrow view on life into one neat, tidy category, that, in reality, is false, and doesn't cover many people at all.

I almost fell off my chair laughing at the utter arrogance and stupidity of that remark, dude.

Quoting Pope (Reply 14):
My argument is that their success is a result of your participation in their lives and not because of the amount of money that is spent.

And my argument is that even with all the parental involvement in the world, if the schools aren't decent, it won't really matter in the long run. Our schools are struggling financially, but arer still making it-barely. To me, "barely" isn't good enough. Our kids should have the best to get through school, not "barely". That's my point.

Quoting Pope (Reply 14):
Your own statements even prove that fact as you lament the financial condition of their schools.

I lament the fact that people like you, Maverick and others think they should basically do without funding, and, if you had your way, would destroy completely public education, instead of trying to make them better. That's what I lament. You want to destroy something that is an important part of my family and it's future.

Quoting Halls120 (Reply 15):
Throwing more money at the problem isn't the solution.

Yes, we know that's the GOP playbook. It's been repeated a hundred times already. Throwing money doesn't help, but making sure school are properly funded is a huge problem in many districts. Not all districts are wealthy, and easily pass school funding. Poorer communites either cannot or will not support education simply because they are poorer. For many districts, who can barely get by, or who are on the verge of bankruptcy, money IS and issue, simply because there isn't any to go around.

You guys seem to think $$ shouldn't be an issue. It is, in everything in life. If we do not support our schools, we aren't supporting the next generation of Americans.

I do not advocate "throwing" money at schools, but I do advocate that schools have the funds to operate properly. You seem to ignore that completely. But again, the reason is obvious.

Quoting Halls120 (Reply 15):
Since when is the responsibility of the "community" to educate children?

Since most schools their children attend are public schools! What kind of crap is that? That's so far out in right field that it defies descripton. Last time I check, kids have been going to public schools for a long time. It is the responsibility of the community, I feel, to support education and PROPERLY fund the schools. And if you don't like the way the funds are used, vote in a new Board of Education that will. But you seem to want to leave the majority of American kids high and dry with either home education, which not many parents have the time and financial freedom to do, or to simply bleed the public schools to death.

Quoting Halls120 (Reply 15):
Public schools are a vital and necessary part of our educational system.

I have trouble believing that after your last statement. If it's so vital, why do you advocate, basically, not funding it?

Quoting Halls120 (Reply 15):
How do you explain places like DC, with extremely high per pupil funding and bottom tier test scores? How has money helped here?

You dodge the issue again: how does it help them at all if schools cannot be repaired, or new books bought, or computers purchased to get the kids into the modern world? How does it help them if the state has to take over the system because the school system can no longer afford to operate even a basic schedule because no money is there? How does that help? It doesn't, does it?

Funding isn't everything, but when there is no funding, and no support for the schools, it's a big issue. For some reason, again, you guys seem to be blind to that fact.

Quoting Halls120 (Reply 15):
I couldn't afford to send my kids to private school, so I made sure to make up the difference by becoming involved with my children's education.

As do my wife and I. Gee, I guess I'm not "liberal" anymore, eh Pope?

Quoting Halls120 (Reply 15):
Sorry, but that is a cop-out. I work full time plus, as did my ex-wife. That never stopped me from staying involved with my children's education.

Did you bother to read my last post? Obviously you did not, buster. In it I said I take time off work to go to Parent-teacher meetings; I try to even take time off if one of the kids have a band concert. I even took a half day off, to finally see my daughter in the High School marching band for the first time. So, stick the cop-out stuff. If you had read what I said, you wouldn't have made such in ill-informed statement.

Quoting Halls120 (Reply 15):
It all starts in the home. Sorry, I just don't buy Hillary's "It takes a village to raise a child" mantra.

Jesus, you're so warped with your right-wing mantra that you have to bring up Hillary Clinton? Unbelievable.

It does take a community to operate public schools, something you don't seem to grasp.

Well, the way we're going, you'll get your way, fellas, and public education will be destroyed. I'm sure you'll celebrate that day.


User currently offlineHalls120 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 18, posted (8 years 2 months 4 weeks 16 hours ago) and read 1063 times:

Quoting Pope (Reply 16):
Now that I am a parent, I do think that it does take a village. However, the notion of a village is not how liberals in the US view it. Village isn't government. Village is everyone in the community actively participating in raise the community's young. Far too often you've got parents who choose to have kids and then want to dump them on everyone else to raise.

If Hillary's version of the village is yours, then I would retract my position on that mantra.

I agree that one thing we lack today is a vibrant community of "extra parents" that were just as observant as out own parents were.

The Washington Post had an article the other day about a mother having difficulty trying to explain to her young children why a group of teenagers started beating an older man in a Target parking lot - because he had the audacity to cross in front ot them. Her younger son kept saying "mommy, the older man didn't do anything - why did they beat him?"

Sadly, the village seems to be transforming itself into a lawless frontier.....


User currently offlinePope From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 19, posted (8 years 2 months 4 weeks 16 hours ago) and read 1063 times:

Falcon writes another novel and "forgets" to address the fact that he hasn't cited a single factual basis to support the notion that more spending on education leads to better academic performance. More spending on education leads to bigger government programs.

Quoting Falcon84 (Reply 17):
And show me where I whine about my work?

Well let's see. You said....

Quoting Falcon84 (Reply 13):
Unfortunately, where I work there are no "normal" schedules. If you're full-time, you either start at like 4 or 5am, or 12:30-1:00pm. That's just the life in an airline hub. If I could get an 8-5 shift, believe me I would.

Would you like some cheese with that whine?


User currently offlineFalcon84 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 20, posted (8 years 2 months 4 weeks 16 hours ago) and read 1061 times:

Quoting Pope (Reply 19):
More spending on education leads to bigger government programs.

If the spending comes from the federal or state government, I might agree, Pope. But I'm NOT talking about federal/state spending. I'm talking about LOCAL COMMUNITY support for a system, like passing levies so schools can be properly maintained; that the best books and learning tools are availible; that kids have extracirriculars like drama, band, sports, that make them more well-rounded people. That's what I'm talking about.

I'd just assume, if possible, to do with out fed/state money, because it comes with too damn many strings attached. On that, I agree with you 100%. I'm talking about communities supporting their schools, nothing else.

Quoting Pope (Reply 19):
Quoting Falcon84 (Reply 13):
Unfortunately, where I work there are no "normal" schedules. If you're full-time, you either start at like 4 or 5am, or 12:30-1:00pm. That's just the life in an airline hub. If I could get an 8-5 shift, believe me I would.

Would you like some cheese with that whine?

ROTFL. Stating fact, and the fact that I would love an 8-5 job isn't whining. It's the way it is. Now, if it makes you feel superior to me, and makes you feel better, you go call it whining. I could have said the same thing about you telling me how you had to leave that program, and the sacrifices you made, but I didn't, did I? Because I, like you, put my children ahead of such things. But it also means that if I have to work such hours, then I will, if it keeps food on the table, clothes on their backs, and a roof over their head.

What you said wasn't whining, just like I said wasn't. It's called doing what you need to do for your children.


User currently offlinePope From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 21, posted (8 years 2 months 4 weeks 16 hours ago) and read 1056 times:

Quoting Falcon84 (Reply 20):
I'd just assume, if possible, to do with out fed/state money, because it comes with too damn many strings attached. On that, I agree with you 100%. I'm talking about communities supporting their schools, nothing else.

So let's be clear about this. You'd support cuts in the federal education funding if those monies were replaced by local funding? It seems to me, and I'd have to go back through the archives, that you repeatedly attacked W during the 2004 election about not spending enough on education.

Obviously those posts were made under the Alpha1 username (remember that the one you ran away from after Kerry lost because of all the ridiculous things you posted). We're taking our daughter to Disney after school tomorrow so I'll be offline this weekend but when I get back, I'll have to spend some time searching the archives to put together your various quotes on the subject.

Since the President can only allocate federal dollars how can you both criticize the President for not spending enough and then say that you "100% agree with me" that more federal spending just leads to bigger government without any increase in results?

Your problem is that your own words are always your worst enemy. You contradict yourself on a regular basis. You post so much and on so many issues that your hypocrisy is there just for the viewing.


User currently offlineANCFlyer From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 22, posted (8 years 2 months 4 weeks 16 hours ago) and read 1055 times:

Negative.

Pre-School starts at the Birth Canal . . . as soon as that child is born . . . that better when the schooling starts.

No taxes pay for that . . .

Now I'll read the thread replies:

Quoting Falcon84 (Reply 2):
Yeah, Aerospacefan, it's such a waste to make sure the poorest of our kids get off the the right start with education, isn't it?

Like I just said, Education starts in the womb,not by God, at age 5 in a pre-school with an underpaid, overworked, don't give a fuck teacher right out of college.

Quoting Falcon84 (Reply 2):
That's one reason our kids are further behind than most the world-people like you refuse to fund education on any level.

And, because we believe the appropriate way to have quality time with your kid is to be the latest and greatest video game and plop them down in front of the machine and let them have at it . . . .

Quoting MD-90 (Reply 4):

1. More taxes means more government control of people, which is bad.

Horseshit in this vein.

Quoting MD-90 (Reply 4):
2. Tax-funded daycare would compete with private businesses that do a far better job than the states do with their public schools

 spit  I don't know where you get your info, but I'd rather have my daughter in a public pre-school any day than something private. Only a very, very, very narrow few day-cares ever got m business . . . and I've sued one . . . private daycare as a whole, is a joke.

Quoting Falcon84 (Reply 5):
Quoting MD-90 (Reply 4):
It's wrong to take money from some productive people and give away free goodies to political groups of people.

Ah, now 4 year olds are a political group. Stick to defending Robert E. Lee, MD-90, you have some expertise in that, I guess.

I'm with Falcon here . . . . political groups? 4 year olds? C'Mon . . . . .

Quoting Falcon84 (Reply 5):
Sorry, but if you're teaching your daughter about the Mesozoic era when she's 4, she's not, with all respect, having a normal childhood.

 checkmark 

Quoting Pope (Reply 11):
Sorry but if you choose to have kids, educating them is first and foremost the parent's role.

Smartest, shortest, most bottom line up front sentence in this entire thread . . . here you have it. Pope, spot on . . . . dead on balls accurate!

Quoting Pope (Reply 11):
But let's dig deeper, let's look at the DC school system. I believe that it leads the nation on per pupil spending at a figure of about $12,000 and is toward the very bottom on academic results. Clearly education is an issue where throwing money at the problem is NOT the answer.

Hmmmmm  scratchchin  . . . two words: Parental Motivation.

Not in DC by God . . . it's a NOLA in disguise . . . gimme, gimme, gimme . . .

Quoting Falcon84 (Reply 13):
Sorry, but I have a full-time job, as does my wife, you see. I mean, it may be alien to someone like you, but we have to work to simply get by, so, whether you or I like it or not, I have to leave the three R's up to the schools. I can help them with their homework; give them advice on problems they might be having at school, and make sure they behave and are the best students they can be, but in the end, they go to a public school. I know that makes you want to hurl, but too freaking bad. That's life.

Well, mostly ditto . . . my daughter lives 3500 miles away. On Monday, this week, I spent the day at her school in Iowa - I've done it before - and I'm impressed . . . usually two teachers in each room. Class size is limited to 24 students. Participation is encouraged. I'm impressed with the entire school system in Cedar Rapids. Nooo, it's not Chicago, Detroit, San Fran - and certainly no Anchorage . . . . the system in DR is light years in advance of anything I've seen lately. My daughter learns . . . that's good. What I find most refreshing, is the teachers - regardless of their political views - teach the subject at hand, according to state law, and not twisted with some perverted bullshit viewpoint they might have read somewhere. I found this to be a problem in Anchorage, and took a teacher to the School Board over same. I want my daughter to learn to read, write and do math as far as the local schools are concerned . . . values I'll teach her myself . . . .until she can form her own.

Back to the topic - since this thread is essentially a POpe V. Falcon bitchfest . . . .

More $$$ for Pre-School? Nope . . . preschool starts in the womb . . . anyone misses that boat, they deserve the bastard child they get. . . stay involved with your child's education . . . . www.prairiepride.com . . . I do. I know what my daughter does at school, I know all her teachers. We trade e-mail, I get status reports . . . . and I'm 3500 miles away. It's called parenting. Money won't solve that . . . staying involved does.


User currently offlineFalcon84 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 23, posted (8 years 2 months 4 weeks 15 hours ago) and read 1049 times:

Quoting Pope (Reply 21):
You'd support cuts in the federal education funding if those monies were replaced by local funding? It seems to me, and I'd have to go back through the archives, that you repeatedly attacked W during the 2004 election about not spending enough on education.

I attacked him because I think this "No Child Left Behind" thing is a bunch of smoke and mirrors. As you said, the fed is throwing money at schools, and it's not making a difference, is it? The big difference isn't the feds or the state, it's the local community showing support for it's local schools. That's the make or break, my friend.

Quoting Pope (Reply 21):
Your problem is that your own words are always your worst enemy.

Well, since you ARE superior to me in every regard, I'll take your word for it. I don't think Bush has used his programs-hell, I can't think of any president that has-the correct way towards education. I don't like his program, and I'd sure as hell rather the money be local than tied down in federal/state bureaucracy.


User currently offlineRedcordes From United States of America, joined Jan 2006, 245 posts, RR: 0
Reply 24, posted (8 years 2 months 4 weeks 15 hours ago) and read 1048 times:

Does our society have any responsibility to those children who don't have decent parenting or parents at all for that matter? Have they any real chance at the "pursuit of happiness" without the help of society? Should we watch them flounder in poverty, as if we were a third-world country? Of course not, and by none of their own fault. We need to educate and prepare as much of each generation as possible to ensure the best future for our country. There can be no valid argument against that. The problem with public education is two-fold: government mandates and teachers' unions. Those are the problems that need to be addressed initially. Secondly, the socioeconomic problems of lower real, inflation-adjusted wages and declining family/moral values are the underlying problems that must be corrected for the foundation of any positive, long-term results.


"The only source of knowledge is experience." A. Einstein "Science w/o religion is lame. Religion w/o science is blind."
25 Halls120 : Where have I ever said that we do not need to ensure that schools need proper funding? The answer is, I haven't. But what is this mysterious "reason"
26 Post contains links Pope : So which one is it AlphaFalcon, is education a federal responsibility that the President should be responsible for or is it a local responsibility? S
27 Falcon84 : You really need a life, Pope, if you have to spend all that time digging up stuff. And it shows one thing: I was against his funding plans, as it was
28 Pope : As hard as you try to divert attention away from your hypocrisy to me, your own words are really your downfall. BTW - the search archive function is
29 Falcon84 : ROTFL. All it proved is I wasn't for Bush's "No Child Left Behind" program, and nothing more. Read what I wrote: state/fed funding will always be the
30 Post contains links MD-90 : Not true. Schools used to be completely 100% local schools. Schools, both public and private, predate government spending in education at the state a
Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
More Troops For Iraq? Bush Ignores. posted Fri Sep 29 2006 22:00:38 by ArtieFufkin
Yet More Evidence For Unnatural Warming posted Tue Sep 19 2006 12:20:04 by 777236ER
Falklands No More Enough For UK, Invade Argentina! posted Mon Feb 20 2006 18:37:23 by Derico
No More Time For Donuts, D'oh posted Wed Dec 28 2005 14:05:02 by Dtwclipper
No More Alcohol For GKirk Allowed :-( posted Tue Nov 15 2005 14:23:03 by Gkirk
More Argument For A National ID posted Sat Sep 17 2005 16:16:46 by TedTAce
No More F*cking For British posted Sun Aug 28 2005 14:01:17 by Airbuzz
I Wish I'd Have More Time For A.net! posted Wed Aug 10 2005 10:35:21 by SFOMEX
No More USDollars For Cubans posted Tue Oct 26 2004 15:31:30 by TACAA320
More Misery For Me posted Mon Jan 19 2004 04:16:48 by IHadAPheo