Posted on 11/13/2009 12:58:29 PM PST by FreshConservative
Early education is one of the hot topics around the liberal roundtable in the United States, both nationally and globally. The liberal elite are not only discussing ways of forcing children into school by the time they are four and younger, as evidenced by Bill SB122 D-Clark-Coleman in Michigan, but now are looking at zero to three years old early education as an extension of K-12 compulsory education. Their mantra is that babies start learning from day one. In a White House press release dated March 10, 2009, “President Obama is committed to helping states develop seamless, comprehensive, and coordinated ‘Zero to Five’ systems to improve developmental outcomes and early learning for all children.” It also stated, “In a global economy where the most valuable skill you can sell is your knowledge, a good education is no longer just a pathway to opportunity, it is a pre-requisite. That is why it will be the goal of this administration to ensure that every child has access to a complete and competitive education; from the day they are born to the day they begin a career."
(Excerpt) Read more at freshconservative.com ...
They can be indoctrinated more easily at a younger age. More praises and songs for Dear Leader.
That is why it will be the goal of this administration to ensure that every child has access to a complete and competitive education; from the day they are born to the day they begin a career."
So up to the last day of the ninth month, the baby can have it's brains sucked out, have it's limbs clipped apart with kitchen shears and thrown into a trash bag - but the next day, the first day of the tenth month, it becomes the property of the state and forced to begin immediate indoctrination.
Stroke of a pen, law of the land. Cool.
Absolutely correct.
I have two daughters. The younger was born when her sister was 13. She essentially spent the first five years of her life being talked to continuously by three intelligent talkative adults.
When she went off to kindergarten her vocabulary was a good deal more extensive than the teacher's. Mispronounced words sometimes, but never misused them.
I challenge a government-run preschool to match that.
Hitler did the same thing with the development of his Master Race.
I like how the toys these days are also learning activities for the kids but not everything needs to be a learning activity.
Kids would be far better served being given time to be outside playing tag together...running around like crazy people....yelling...screaming...laughing.
You know...being kids.
Of course, those ARE learning activities. Children are being deprived of it today and I'm sure there will be unintended consequences.
When I was a kid 40 years ago packs of us roamed all over the neighborhood all day long during the summer. You just don't see kids out and about anymore.
This is a fantastic opportunity for the Catholic Church to expand its schools and Universities; especially reaching out to home-schooling parents.
As long as mothers are required, or choose to work outside the home, the education of our next generations will be controlled by liberal elected officials, unionized liberal teachers, professors, Hollywood’s fashion, amoral and violent musical influences. It is insidious and it’s our own fault.
Mmmmmm...mmmmmm...mmmmmmmmmm!
Over the summer we got all sorts of emails from some of the neighbors. About 10 kids in the neighborhood, riding bikes, etc. Two of the neighbors complained about them riding down their sloping driveways. A car could hit them and we might get sued. Stay off our lawn. Don’t be so loud, my baby is trying to nap. Don’t ride by our fence - it agitates the dogs. Blah, blah, blah. Part of me says “well, it is their yard and if they don’t want them on it....”. The other part says “O ‘cmon - their KIDS!”
One of my kids did sneek some sodas from a friend’s house (with the friend) and drank them out by the clubhouse. And then threw the empties over the fence into the adjoining yard so they “wouldn’t get caught”! (Sounds like things I used to do! I was almost happy that they could enjoy a little bit of doing something “wrong”. Part of being a kid - at least for me it was!) We made them clean up the mess and they spent another couple of hours doing other odd clean-up jobs for the gal too. (Sounds like something else I used to do!)
You’re right, of course. I had the same experience growing up.I think parents are little more...ok a lot more...overprotective these days.
I’m not sure if the world is actually a scarier place than it was when I was a kid (I’m 40) or we just hear about so many more scary things in the Information Age than we used to that we feel like it is.
It is remarkably difficult to get accurate statistics about comparable risk to kids over time. Kidnapping, perverts and all that. I know, I’ve tried.
The basic problem is that nobody kept such records in a centralized place, back when.
I suspect there are no more perverts and kidnappings as a percentage of population than in the past. Such an event used to make the local paper and perhaps those in the rest of the state. Today we all hear about every one that happens anywhere in the country.
Makes them feel a lot more common, even if they aren’t.
People don’t seem to tolerate kids anymore. Not sure why.
They’ve probably killed them off.
Well, if you assume the percentage of deviant perverts in the population remains the same, and the population is much greater than it was 30 years ago, then you will have more deviant perverts in raw numbers than we did back then. Since the space they inhabit hasn’t changed radically there will be more per square mile than there used to be.
I’m sure there are more deviants in raw numbers, due, as you say, to the larger population. I’m just not convinced there are more as a percentage of the population, or that a child’s risk of being victimized by one is much if any greater than in the past.
That’s exactly the point I’m making.
I don’t think there are more deviants as a percentage but if the percentage of deviants stays the same and the population is bigger, in theory at least, a child’s risk will be higher because in raw numbers, there are more deviants.
Disagree. If there are more perverts, but also there are more children in the same proportion, the risk to each child remains the same.
If we want to get terribly technical, we probably have fewer children as a percentage of the population than 40 ot 50 years ago, so the risk per child may have gone up slightly.
But if you were to ask the people who obsess about these things, they probably think the risk has gone up as a multiple, and I strongly suspect that isn’t the case.
The percentage of attacks by deviants on children would remain the same but since there are more deviants there would be more attacks.
The risk to your specific child would be the same but the instances of attacks on kids (in general) would be higher...and combined with our information age, it’d seem like it was a worse problem because in raw number...it is.
I think we agree, then. Risk to children roughly the same. Perception of risk greatly increased, due to more publicity and greater raw numbers of attacks.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.