Obama on Education: He's a Democrat
This is Part One in this series. As you know, this series is not for Democrats. If you're voting for whatever Democrat is on the ticket in November, this is not going to dissuade you.
We begin with Senator Obama's own words on the issues, starting with education.
My dad was a secondary school teacher and my husband is a college professor. Both of them are bright, well-read and probably underpaid. This inequity, however, never translated into their beating the NEA drum of "more money for education is the answer"(God bless 'em). It's a popular drum to beat and it looks like Obama will beat it long and hard. Here are some exerpts:
It appears that increasing funding for every federal educational program is Senator Obama's solution. How audacious! This is consistent with his Woodrow-Wilsonesque progressivism that enlarges an already chubby Nanny State. Is this really change for the better?
Consider, we spend about 2.5 times more on a per pupil basis than we did forty years ago (adjusted for inflation). Is education 2.5 times better than it was in the 50's and 60's?
In an age of climate change, jihad and $4 gallons of gas, education may seem trivial. It isn't. It deserves an audacious approach that dares to look beyond throwing money at the problem. "Increasing funding" means taking money from someone, and it isn't Barack Obama.
Worse, it's trying to cure a disease with a placebo.
This isn't intended to be an exhaustive look at the problem of America's educational system. It's about understanding Senator Obama, what change means to him and who/what is likely to influence him should he win the office.
We begin with Senator Obama's own words on the issues, starting with education.
My dad was a secondary school teacher and my husband is a college professor. Both of them are bright, well-read and probably underpaid. This inequity, however, never translated into their beating the NEA drum of "more money for education is the answer"(God bless 'em). It's a popular drum to beat and it looks like Obama will beat it long and hard. Here are some exerpts:
Expand Early Head Start and Head Start: Obama will quadruple Early Head Start, increase Head Start funding and improve quality for both.
Address the Dropout Crisis: Obama will address the dropout crisis by passing his legislation to provide funding to school districts to invest in intervention strategies in middle school - strategies such as personal academic plans, teaching teams, parent involvement, mentoring, intensive reading and math instruction, and extended learning time.
Expand High-Quality Afterschool Opportunities: Obama will double funding for the main federal support for afterschool programs, the 21st Century Learning Centers program, to serve one million more children.
It appears that increasing funding for every federal educational program is Senator Obama's solution. How audacious! This is consistent with his Woodrow-Wilsonesque progressivism that enlarges an already chubby Nanny State. Is this really change for the better?
Consider, we spend about 2.5 times more on a per pupil basis than we did forty years ago (adjusted for inflation). Is education 2.5 times better than it was in the 50's and 60's?In an age of climate change, jihad and $4 gallons of gas, education may seem trivial. It isn't. It deserves an audacious approach that dares to look beyond throwing money at the problem. "Increasing funding" means taking money from someone, and it isn't Barack Obama.
Worse, it's trying to cure a disease with a placebo.
This isn't intended to be an exhaustive look at the problem of America's educational system. It's about understanding Senator Obama, what change means to him and who/what is likely to influence him should he win the office.
Labels: Education, Politics, The Case Against Barack Obama
SHARE THIS: Facebook | Stumble It! | Del.icio.us | DiggIt! | Technorati
3 Comments:
You make a good point, especially about the quality of education since our parents were in school.
Lois and I were discussing this on the phone this morning. She was watching a commercial on Lifetime where they were interviewing women on the street about what they would do if they were president. Apparently one response was "cheaper daycare." Let's first of all ignore the ridiculousness of the idea that daycare costs should be any concern of the president, and break down what that would mean: higher taxes to pay for cheaper childcare. Now, I'm assuming the mom needs the daycare so she can work. Does she not work at a job where taxes aren't taken out of her paycheck? So how exactly does the government pay for child care without FICA taking even MORE money from you each month? Either way, you're still paying for it. Why don't people get this?
Wednesday, June 11, 2008
See, the problem is you're speaking LOGIC. When it comes to Obama, logic for some reason goes out the window. He wants to have universal preschool, which would make it mandatory for all. Translation: we all pay for other people's childcare. This is what happened long ago with kindergarten from my understanding. Soon kids are going to be required to go to school from birth, & they still won't know how to read when they graduate!
Democratic plans to throw money at problems & increase government involvement in every aspect of life have rarely, if ever, been successful. This guy just has some weird charm that makes him able to sell it, & it's scary. Not that McCain is a fabulous alternative, but at least he isn't a socialist.
Wednesday, June 11, 2008
And the government mandating what marriage should be defined as, what we're allowed to see and hear on television and the radio, the choice a spouse has to make about a comatose loved one is better government involvment?
Wednesday, July 09, 2008
Post a Comment
<< Home