Posted on 04/02/2002 8:46:39 AM PST by toenail
Not as much as many would like but we would have had INCREASES under Gore.
You define yourself. Bigger government goes on the left side; smaller government goes on the right.
Here's your argument: A) Public schools exist. Therefore, B) public schools should exist.
I don't see why B follows from A.
A better idea, undertaken by a President with real cojones who wouldn't even bother to pander for votes but would try to achieve something in the first four years at his own political risk, would be to STRONGLY encourage marriage for parents of young children. A family environment, with one parent around most of the time, is far better for preschoolers than preschool is, for three reasons.
Socially, at home with a parent who thinks the world of him, a preschooler feels important and feels he has a special place in the world. He belongs, and he learns how his world works, with his only sense of security there by his side (his parent).
Educationally, he has the confidence to try new things, and the one-on-one attention he needs to keep trying them. A normal day with Mom or Dad provides incredible learning experiences, and if Mom or Dad adds reading to him and taking him to interesting places, so much the better.
Last but definitely not least, medically, a preschooler's immune system is weak. All those kids together in one room, not old enough yet for much hygiene, gives rise to the most germy atmosphere in our society, and the kids do suffer when they catch all the bugs going around. You can't learn much when you are sick.
Throwing money at Head Start is only the appearance of helping young children. I am sorry he chose this tactic.
Far too many of the Head Start personnel are just as "dumb" as the children they are supposed to be elevating.
Around these parts the "teachers" aren't any better than those parents you refer to. They simply aren't qualified to do anything else so they get on the education bandwagon, or should I say government titty?
I have personally witnesses what would have been child abuse if a parent was doing it, by Head Start personnel. Small children who haven't a clue being taken on hospital tours, for cryin' out loud! With scary-looking harridens screaming and jerking them along. I wanted to jump in to rescue the poor little tykes.
Also, I beleive that children that small should be in bed at the times they are hauled out and shoved on busses and driven for up to an hour-and-a-half, EACH WAY!
Tell me just how and 3-4 year-old benefits from this experience!
The Bush folks may buy the dream, but I'm afraid that the reality is grim for these poor kids.
When they came around to my home trying to recruit my twins, I all but ran 'em off with a shotgun.
I agree with much of what you say...a lot depends on the district this is in. And of course I was a volunteer at Head Start in the late 70's, before it became apparently a cottage industry.
Still, if Head Start can be made over to do what it was originally intended to do, and get the dead wood out of it, I think it might be a good program. There needs to be something to help these kids.
I also would like to say that this should be voluntary. I would not like to see ALL children compelled to participate in government programs.
That's not even close to the argument as set up by YOURSELF...CHEES I was using your argument and spelled out why it was flawed.
Also, I beleive that children that small should be in bed at the times they are hauled out and shoved on busses and driven for up to an hour-and-a-half, EACH WAY!
Well that is a tad anecdotal and not representative of the Head Start Program. The alternative is to let the single mothers stay on welfare and have no work ethic for them or the younger child who grows up and continues that cycle. Most of these kids dont have anybody to read to them and Bush is attempting to reform a program that is here to stay, with effective research-based literacy and phonics instruction.
I don't even know what to say to you, except perhaps maybe you should research a little more (it's not hard to find). This is an attack on American children, sugarcoated for the masses. We're going to be tracked and monitored our entire lives by a central government, and you are apparently OK with the fate being imposed on the coming generations.
I dont see data collection on student achievement as being tracked and monitored by a central government.
What is the problem for which we need a "plan?" Why can't you answer this simple question but instead seek to impugn me or my motives?
An analogy that comes to mind is the "health care crisis" several years ago. Remember that one? The one in which nothing was done and the sky didn't fall?
I'm simply asking for you to define what the problem is that these wonderful new expanded government programs are going to counter and to defend how they will accomplish their goals.
I don't even know how to respond to that. Unfreakingbelievable.
I can understand why quantified research scares you.
Why are you on a conservative forum?
Because some folks around here can't stomach anyone who disagrees with GW Bush. (I don't happen to be one of them)
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.