$500 Million Obama Administration Program Will Help Kids 'Sit Still' in Kindergarten

Originally posted by Indigo5

Originally posted by GalacticJoe
reply to post by Indigo5

 

If we are to continue to be the "shining light on the hill" to the rest of the world then one thing is certain IMO, the next generation must be better than the last. It's a worthy goal to aim for

What exactly is that goal? Give our children up to the feds when they are 1 or 2 so that we can go to work and compete with the Chinese or other exporters? This is insanity because exponential growth is not possible over long periods of time.

The schools are local, not federal.

The goal is not to compete directly with China or India's youth in Math or Science. The Chinese practically give their children an abacus in place of a rattle. Where we compete is where we have always led the way...the computer, the television, the telephone, the internet, the fricken automobile ad infinitium. The chinese can manufacture, they can copy things very well and very cheap, but not innovate, not invent...America's unique independant culture affords the most fertile ground on earth for innovation and invention. We need to give our children a foundation to compete in the world and the rest will follow naturally IMO.

edit on 2-6-2011 by Indigo5 because: (no reason given)

The schools may reside locally, but the purse string is controlled Federally.
That is what most people are against.
Abolish the Department of Education and give the control back to the States and Municipalities.

Originally posted by macman

Originally posted by Kali74
reply to post by macman

 

While Kathleen Sebelius may have said that, it is one quote out of who knows what else she said because people have a habit of only pointing out what they want you to see. I highly doubt anyone expects a 5 year old to be able to still for long, but they should be able to participate in a kindergarten class without zooming around the room every 5 minutes. Kindergarten classes despite what the slant is telling you are geared with 4-5 year olds in mind. They sing, play games, draw and start learning to write and do simple math. They are not even given the opportunity to be still for longer than 5 minutes nevermind encouraged or forced to do so. When 4-5 year olds cannot do these things something has gone wrong somewhere, the program under fire is aimed at correcting it.

Thanks, You just proved my point that Tax money need not be applied.
Common sense still trumps throwing money at the problem. You, on the ATS board just did what the Govt wants to pay $500m out for.

No, I did not. I did not fix the preschool problem that is plaguing our babies. I have no clue the best way to prepare a group of 3-4 year olds for kindergarten. What you seem to be missing is the fact that there is a huge difference in the behavior of a child that was kept out of preschool and the behavior of a child that was sent to preschool, the catch there is most families do not have the luxury of choosing for one parent to stay home. Maybe you have some suggestions as to how to revert back to a single income economy? Short of that, yes we do need to look at better ways to prepare our preschoolers for kindergarten.

Originally posted by Kali74

Originally posted by macman

Originally posted by Kali74
reply to post by macman

 

While Kathleen Sebelius may have said that, it is one quote out of who knows what else she said because people have a habit of only pointing out what they want you to see. I highly doubt anyone expects a 5 year old to be able to still for long, but they should be able to participate in a kindergarten class without zooming around the room every 5 minutes. Kindergarten classes despite what the slant is telling you are geared with 4-5 year olds in mind. They sing, play games, draw and start learning to write and do simple math. They are not even given the opportunity to be still for longer than 5 minutes nevermind encouraged or forced to do so. When 4-5 year olds cannot do these things something has gone wrong somewhere, the program under fire is aimed at correcting it.

Thanks, You just proved my point that Tax money need not be applied.
Common sense still trumps throwing money at the problem. You, on the ATS board just did what the Govt wants to pay $500m out for.

No, I did not. I did not fix the preschool problem that is plaguing our babies. I have no clue the best way to prepare a group of 3-4 year olds for kindergarten. What you seem to be missing is the fact that there is a huge difference in the behavior of a child that was kept out of preschool and the behavior of a child that was sent to preschool, the catch there is most families do not have the luxury of choosing for one parent to stay home. Maybe you have some suggestions as to how to revert back to a single income economy? Short of that, yes we do need to look at better ways to prepare our preschoolers for kindergarten.

I do know one thing, that throwing tax payer money at the problem will not solve anything. Never has, never will.
First step would be to abolish the Federal Department of Education.
Second would to place the control back at the State and Local level.

You don't give yourself enough credit. You basically summed up the issue, without grant money or tax dollars.
The problem of teaching children is not the business of the Fed Govt. It is between the parent and the school.

Originally posted by macman
The schools may reside locally, but the purse string is controlled Federally.
That is what most people are against.
Abolish the Department of Education and give the control back to the States and Municipalities.

Wrong.

The states already have control.

This is a Grant...a gift of money for State level initiatives...not a directive. If a state doesn't want to do it, they don't have to...if they do want to start programs to help with early learning, they can build their own programs and get money to do it.

FACTS:

Under the Constitution, States are responsible for K-12 education.
The Federal government supplements funding and k-12 education for the states, NOT supplants.
They assist failing school districts with funds and guidance, but constitutionally they cannot mandate squat.

If a local school district doesn't want federal help they don't have to take it.

If a school wants to pray every day...they can do that too. It happens every day in Catholic schools...they just don't get taxpayer funds to do it.

K-12 Education is run at the local level through local school boards.

83% of K-12 education spending in the USA comes from the State and Local level.
(People who pay property taxes are painfully aware of this)
This is why Gov. Walker's plan in Wisconsin was a big deal. Think about it.
This is why when a state economy suffers, teachers get laid off.

There is just a whole lot of plain facts that get really distorted to fit an agenda.

The real question should be why do these facts get so twisted? To what purpose is the BS directed toward?

What advantage is there is removing federal assistance from impovershed and troubled school districts?

What advantage is there in furthering the gap between the "haves and have nots" in this country?

Is a country that has a large class divide easier to rule?

Do more uneducated masses make for a cheap labor base for the wealthy?

Is an uneducated citizenry simply easier to feed propaganda? They ask fewer questions?

Does it create an easier pool of citizenry for the military to recruit from? We all know the strong correlation between economic and educational status and enlistment. Go to war...get your education paid for. The options are getting limited for those not born into money.

There is no doubt that there is an effort to decimate educational opportunity and resources in this country for the common child/man/woman.

This effort is aggressive.

IMO the question is why?

reply to post by Kali74

Further more, I love the spin on the idea of having one parent stay home is a luxury. Class warfare at its best.
I guess you can't be blamed, as most families are only mimicking the actions of the Federal Govt. You know, spend more then what you take in. Put outsiders before yourself. Place responsibility on someone else. Blame others and the blatant disregard at solving the problem. Hard road is to create a solution. Easy road is to throw money at the problem.

Originally posted by Indigo5

Originally posted by macman
The schools may reside locally, but the purse string is controlled Federally.
That is what most people are against.
Abolish the Department of Education and give the control back to the States and Municipalities.

Wrong.

The states already have control.

This is a Grant...a gift of money for State level initiatives...not a directive. If a state doesn't want to do it, they don't have to...if they do want to start programs to help with early learning, they can build their own programs and get money to do it.

FACTS:

Under the Constitution, States are responsible for K-12 education.
The Federal goverment supplements funding and k-12 education for the states, NOT supplants.
They assist failing school districts with funds and guidance, but constitutionally they cannot mandate squat.

If a local school district doesn't want federal help they don't have to take it.

If a school wants to pray every day...they can do that too. It happens every day in Catholic schools...they just don't get taxpayer mfunds to do it.

K-12 Education is run at the local level through local school boards.

83% of K-12 education spending in the USA comes from the State and Local level.
(People who pay property taxes are painfully aware of this)
This is why Gov. Walker's plan in Wisconsin was a big deal. Think about it.
This is why when a state economy suffers, teachers get laid off.

There is just a whole lot of plain facts that get really distorted to fit an agenda.

The real question should be why do these facts get so twisted? To what purpose is the BS directed toward?

What advantage is there is removing federal assistance from impovershed and troubled school districts?

What advantage is there in furthering the gap between the "haves and have nots" in this country?

Is a country that has a large class divide easier to rule?

Do more uneducated masses make for a cheap labor base for the wealthy?

Is an undeducated citizenry simply easier to feed propaganda? They ask fewer questions?

Does it create an easier pool of citizenry for the military to recruit from? We all know the strong correlation between economic and educational status and enlistment. Go to war...get your education paid for. The options are getting limited for those not born into money.

There is no doubt that there is an effort to decimate educational opportunity and resources in this country for the common child/man/woman.

This effort is aggressive.

IMO the question is why?

A gift you say? How is that since the Fed has to take the money from someone first, in order to give to others?

A gift you say? And I am sure that come election time, those that gave the gift from the Federal level won't hold sway with those that received it at the State/Local level.

You are very naive if you think that this is a "no strings attached" program.

And no, with numerous programs, including No Child Left Behind, the Fed Govt has control. Not directly, but he who holds the money, makes the rules.

Maybe look to States like Utah, where the over all spending per student is dramatically less then most other states, yet has a very high level of graduation, college goers and successful people.
Sorry, but Money does not equal problem solved. Doesn't even come close.

Originally posted by macman
reply to post by Kali74

 

Further more, I love the spin on the idea of having one parent stay home is a luxury. Class warfare at its best.
I guess you can't be blamed, as most families are only mimicking the actions of the Federal Govt. You know, spend more then what you take in. Put outsiders before yourself. Place responsibility on someone else. Blame others and the blatant disregard at solving the problem. Hard road is to create a solution. Easy road is to throw money at the problem.

Here is a chart showing the cost of living in the USA (Consumer Price Index)

Even adjusted for inflation, it has rocketed in the past 30 years.

Right about the time women entered the workforce in the seventies and eighties...it became more expensive to simply live (food, rent, utilities).

It is bait and switch. Everyone thought they would be working 20 and 30 hour weeks when both spouses worked and pretty soon both parents were working 40 plus hours just to survive.

I am not a fan of two working parents. You can make it work on one income, it just means not giving a damn if you have a television, IPad etc...and hunkering down on the budget, BUT I also understand that it is not easy. In the 50's and 60's the middle class could live a good and comfortable life with all the amenities on a middle class income and one working parent. That is long gone. Both parents must now hustle full-time for those same comforts or do without.

www.economics-charts.com...

reply to post by Indigo5


So what is your point?
I guess that you let flawed statistics govern your life? I don't.
If I want something, I work for it.
Laying blame on the market or economy is a nice way to get out of taking responsibility and an easy excuse. But, again, Monkey see Monkey do. If it is good for some and pitched to by the Govt, it has to be good for all.
But, you do what you want. I don't care. When it affects me, like I don't know tax money being funneled for useless programs, that is when I have a problem.

But, what ever. You think this is great and that will never change. Lets revisit this in say, 3 years and see how well this program, like 99% of every other program does.
My educated prediction is FAILURE. And more money added like every other.

Originally posted by macman
A gift you say? How is that since the Fed has to take the money from someone first, in order to give to others?

yes a grant is a gift to the state that recieves it. Yes it comes from taxpayer money. This grant is .0007 percent of the "gift" given to the military industrial complex on an annual basis. EVERYTHING that taxpayer money pays for works this way. Your contention is with what this money is being spent on. To me educating our children seems a noble and very small expense in comparison to the endless Billions we spend on other nonsense.

Originally posted by macman
A gift you say? And I am sure that come election time, those that gave the gift from the Federal level won't hold sway with those that received it at the State/Local level.

This is a strange statement. The state citiezens will vote for who? Because of a federal education grant?

Should the US Government also not help in Joplin? Or help the economy recover? It's all just pandering? In this philosophy the GOP should be hoping for the US gov to fail?...at least until they are in the whitehouse...then the Dems should hope the US Gov. fails?...this seems a particularly ugly bit of nonsense.

Maybe look to States like Utah, where the over all spending per student is dramatically less then most other states, yet has a very high level of graduation, college goers and successful people.
Sorry, but Money does not equal problem solved. Doesn't even come close.

Utah has the most kids per population in the USA. They also are 2nd in the country when it comes to local spending.

A paradox explained...
www.utahfoundation.org...

reply to post by jibeho


Right and when they leave at 7:30 am and return on the bus at 4:30 pm...

That makes me

Less regurgitated reform type programs that make the children rebel against such things as the joy of reading...

Less structured time in curriculum and more joy based learning including dance, song, play and interactive learning is what keeps children at 5-6 years of age anxious to learn and to participate.

These programs that teach children and parents to lie in order to meet the tight regime of reading for example the no child left behind program asks a 5 year old to read 400 minutes a month takes all the joy out of reading and bedtime stories and turns it into a grueling and forced 30 minutes a day written down and signed control system!

If you want mediocre automatons that's fine but if you miss several times out of the month due to LIFE, you are apt to lie to get the child's required reading in... That's the truth...

Repetitive lesson plans that are geared towards the mid range learner, leaves the upper bored and the lower totally lost. Therefore the kids learn early on that mediocrity is rewarded, this causes the lower level intelligences leading the class!

The politics of public schools are the worst case scenario as well, and again it is always the mediocre kids who have parents who control the system. I HATE what Michelle Obama is introducing in making parents more responsible for their children's education, she wants parents to be graded!

Unless you are part of the system you are not welcome in public schools today, they look at parents as potential terrorists or something. Everyone is suspect that walks through the doors and in fact the dangerous ones, the ones who 'may' be pedophiles hang out without a doubt, they don't need encouragement.

They do not want parents to home school, but they want them to take more responsibility in their children's education? Which is it? They want both!

Originally posted by macman
reply to post by Indigo5

 

So what is your point?

That the cost of living in the USA has increased.

Originally posted by macman
I guess that you let flawed statistics govern your life? I don't.

I am not sure how you determined what governs my life by my posting a link to the CPI...not sure there is rational discussion to be had here with you.

If I want something, I work for it.

Uhh...OK. I do 50 push-ups every morning and grow tomatoes. Are we just sharing dumb irrelevant crap about ourselves? Cuz you sure as sh*& know nothing about me.

Originally posted by macman
Laying blame on the market or economy is a nice way to get out of taking responsibility and an easy excuse.

Again...you are arguing with a phantom. I stated reality...facts...I don't recall laying blame. I do call BS what it is whatever side of the fence the pile is sitting on.

But, you do what you want. I don't care. When it affects me, like I don't know tax money being funneled for useless programs, that is when I have a problem.

Well, it would be a relief if you debated the effectiveness of Early Childhood Education and why you think it is "useless" in comparison to every other taxpayer expense, but your posts seems a continuance of bitter, unrelated, personal nonsense.

Originally posted by Indigo5

Originally posted by macman
A gift you say? How is that since the Fed has to take the money from someone first, in order to give to others?

yes a grant is a gift to the state that recieves it. Yes it comes from taxpayer money. This grant is .0007 percent of the "gift" given to the military industrial complex on an annual basis. EVERYTHING that taxpayer money pays for works this way. Your contention is with what this money is being spent on. To me educating our children seems a noble and very small expense in comparison to the endless Billions we spend on other nonsense.

Originally posted by macman
A gift you say? And I am sure that come election time, those that gave the gift from the Federal level won't hold sway with those that received it at the State/Local level.

This is a strange statement. The state citiezens will vote for who? Because of a federal education grant?

Should the US Government also not help in Joplin? Or help the economy recover? It's all just pandering? In this philosophy the GOP should be hoping for the US gov to fail?...at least until they are in the whitehouse...then the Dems should hope the US Gov. fails?...this seems a particularly ugly bit of nonsense.

Maybe look to States like Utah, where the over all spending per student is dramatically less then most other states, yet has a very high level of graduation, college goers and successful people.
Sorry, but Money does not equal problem solved. Doesn't even come close.

Utah has the most kids per population in the USA. They also are 2nd in the country when it comes to local spending.

A paradox explained...
www.utahfoundation.org...

Funny thing about statistics is that they can be skewed any way you want them.
www.deseretnews.com...

and

www.utaheducationfacts.com...

So, there you have it. Top rate schools, low amount spent. Per the stats I provided.
Maybe I can find a stat that shows people like mud over water?

You make an assumption that I support the GOP. Fatal flaw in your logic.

Should the Fed Govt help with State emergencies? It should be left up to the State. But, he who holds the money, makes the rules.

Originally posted by Indigo5

Originally posted by macman
reply to post by Indigo5

 

So what is your point?

That the cost of living in the USA has increased.

Originally posted by macman
I guess that you let flawed statistics govern your life? I don't.

I am not sure how you determined what governs my life by my posting a link to the CPI...not sure there is rational discussion to be had here with you.

If I want something, I work for it.

Uhh...OK. I do 50 push-ups every morning and grow tomatoes. Are we just sharing dumb irrelevant crap about ourselves? Cuz you sure as sh*& know nothing about me.

Originally posted by macman
Laying blame on the market or economy is a nice way to get out of taking responsibility and an easy excuse.

Again...you are arguing with a phantom. I stated reality...facts...I don't recall laying blame. I do call BS what it is whatever side of the fence the pile is sitting on.

But, you do what you want. I don't care. When it affects me, like I don't know tax money being funneled for useless programs, that is when I have a problem.

Well, it would be a relief if you debated the effectiveness of Early Childhood Education and why you think it is "useless" in comparison to every other taxpayer expense, but your posts seems a continuance of bitter, unrelated, personal nonsense.

My point of argument is as follows:
1) The Fed Govt has no business in Education. Period. It is to be regulated and governed by the State and Localities. This includes not taking federal money. What ever crap you pitch other wise is wide eyed naivety, once the Fed provides money, then the State uses that money and becomes dependent on it like a junkie with a fix. All the Fed has to do then is threaten to take the money, and the State is at their will.
2) I do not allow economic data define how much I make or what I do. You should do the same and not use it as an excuse.
3) If you want to have a stay at home parent, it can be done. If you want it, and work for it, you can get it. Stop whining.
4) This idea of throwing money at a problem is just Liberal garbage. Program after program fails to do anything except suck money and become larger. Again, apply wide eyed naivety and there you have a great thing, because after all, they must do something right?