Thursday, August 30, 2012
Pick your priorities of this election and our nation
From the New York Times today:
This week, the Center for American Progress and the Center for the Next Generation released a report entitled “The Race That Really Matters: Comparing U.S., Chinese and Indian Investments in the Next Generation Workforce.” The findings were breathtaking:
• Half of U.S. children get no early childhood education, and we have no national strategy to increase enrollment.
• More than a quarter of U.S. children have a chronic health condition, such as obesity or asthma, threatening their capacity to learn.
• More than 22 percent of U.S. children lived in poverty in 2010, up from about 17 percent in 2007.
• More than half of U.S. postsecondary students drop out without receiving a degree.
So, a question for America and the Republican Party--do you really want to make debt the big issue of this campaign?
THAT'S your big concern?
Link: http://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/25/opinion/blow-starving-the-future.html?_r=3&adxnnl=1&adxnnlx=1346300356-ITe9GpBrnsBxgldzR8gqsA
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
6 comments:
Half of U.S. children get no early childhood education, and we have no national strategy to increase enrollment.
What is the evidence that children NEED institutional early childhood education? Studies I've seen on Head Start show little to no permanent gains--the other kids catch up in a few years.
More than a quarter of U.S. children have a chronic health condition, such as obesity or asthma, threatening their capacity to learn.
(from the article)
6 in 10 of those teachers say “students regularly come to school hungry because they are not getting enough to eat at home,”
Very misleading use of statistics, and contradictory ones at that-some kids are too fat to learn, the rest are too hungry...
Someone in the US who lets their children go hungry regularly, whose children only get lunch at school is an abusive parent who should not be raising children.
More than half of U.S. postsecondary students drop out without receiving a degree.
In large part because of the student aid system. People who don't need or want college are encouraged to enroll anyway. Not everyone is capable of completing a useful degree. Some people that I know are going to college primarily to get current living expenses, not to prepare for the future.
Not every job needs a degree--we will always need trades, skills that are best learned on the job.
It isn't that "children NEED institutional early childhood education", necessarily but that they can and are helped by it. Statistics/data:
http://www.highscope.org/content.asp?contentid=260
You say: "Someone in the US who lets their children go hungry regularly, whose children only get lunch at school is an abusive parent who should not be raising children."
Wow. Can you get more elitist? Man, that is one loaded question.
Unless a man or woman--father or mother--is purely, deeply on drugs or alcohol or is some other way not connected to reality, there isn't a parent alive who "lets their children go hungry regularly", as though it's some choice, that they have the money and wherewithal but choose to let their children go hungry. Man. That is too much.
Name these people you know who "are going to college primarily to get current living expenses, not to prepare for the future"? First, it has to be a short list and second, no one--no one, Republican, Democrat, Libertarian, whatever--thinks that's how the system should work.
Great to speak with you again.
Oh, and actually, obesity and being overweight due to food insecurity, in adults and children, both, is not unusual or exclusive so really, there's no inconsistency there at all, necessarily.
Benefiting certain individuals isn't enough to justify a federal program, even if you take the study quoted by a company making Head Start Curriculum materials at face value. In your view, is there anything that would violate the 9th and 10th amendments? (And yes, I would have much less of an objection to a similar state program)
I don't think there are many people who would have money for food but let their kids go hungry. However, I know people who buy unnecessary things (cigarettes, fast food, soda, alcohol, cell phones, video games, etc) today, and as a direct result can't buy food next week. They are neglectful, and far too common. I don't believe there are many people who give up everything less important than feeding their kids, and still can't manage lunch on most days despite welfare, food stamps and charities.
People using school primarily for current expenses may be extremely rare, but it is common enough that I have personal knowledge--plus I've seen a couple of Internet comments about 'riding out the recession in college', in the context of extending their stay as long as they can manage.
That's not the biggest issue. Student aid has utterly failed in making education more affordable-As the feds put more money in, costs go up to absorb the extra money. The people supplying the money are too far removed from the people getting the services, always a recipe for inefficiency and waste.
So many people--mostly white--complain about programs costing and not benefitting and yet it seems virtually always based on their opinions and not facts and hard statistics. "I have personal knowledge" and "I've seen a couple of internet comments about 'riding out the recession in college'", etc., etc.
The fact is, as an example, the Danes have a system that is, by all opinions, I suppose, "Socialist" but is extremely successful nearly completely across the board, including with the support of their college students. (source: http://urpasheville.org/proceedings/ncur2011/papers/NP52087.pdf). Why are we, as a society, so vehemently opposed to things like supporting the education of our students, let alone of universal health care?
It's bizarre. We're scared as heck of possible "freeloaders", it seems. I think it's our Calvinist/Puritan background.
Denmark is under half the population of Ohio. Many of my complaints are significantly reduced at that size--in many cases I object to a program being federal more than the program itself. Ohio is different than New York City, one program won't suit both.
Things that the government gets involved in get more expensive--and the less local the government the more expensive. Student aid hasn't made education cheaper to students, costs have gone up to absorb the extra aid. Government involvement in health care has made it much more expensive--and that is aside from corruption. (side note--I was born at Edward Hospital. When they tried to expand a few years back they couldn't get permission without payoffs, the end result was governor Rod Blagojevich going to jail)
I'm hardly a puritan, at least politically--The war on drugs is also partly responsible for many of our health care issues among many other problems.
Post a Comment