Will Obama Really Fix Education?

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Fri Nov 14, 2008 4:26 am

For those who voted for Obama because of promises to "fix" the education system (which is the responsibility of individual states, not the federal gov't, by the way), you may find that they were standard pap of politics.

Complete Article here

Democratic politicians like to see themselves as champions of public education; but when it comes to picking schools for their own children to attend, their support disappears. President-elect Obama is no different than hundreds of other Democratic elected officials across the nation, from members of Congress to big-city mayors and city council members. The president-elect's daughters have been in private schools in Chicago -- and all indications are that they will enroll in one of Washington's elite private schools when the family makes its big move to 1600 Pennsylvania Ave.

That's too bad because it insulates the Obamas from what other families must deal with: a failing public school system that resists genuine reform. And in Washington's case, it deprives a courageous new school chancellor of what would be her most powerful constituents, the First Family.

CARLA · Post by **CARLA** » Fri Nov 14, 2008 8:03 am

I have to believe he will fix education as he promised. I hold people to their promises and this is one of the biggest in my opinion. Our public schools are failing at an alarming rate it has to change and soon. If he can't fix education he won't be able to fix the rest of our problems as well. EDUCATION is #1 it alone will resolve some of our Nations issues. The more knowledge ones has the better equipped they are at dealing anything that comes their way.

I have to believe in President Obama we must if this country is to go forward.

Post by **Peter Lake** » Fri Nov 14, 2008 9:20 am

Obama seems to have made a long list of promises to the American voter's.

As with any newly elected politician, only time will will tell if he adhere's to the promise.

I think he has made too many promises and even if he fulfills every one of them, it will take many years to put into place.

By the time he gets round to doing everything he has said he will, his office will be up, people will be dis-heartned with him and will not re-elect him.

He seems to be full of talk. It will be interesting to see in time if he can actually do the job he's been elected for.

I doubt weather he can.

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Fri Nov 14, 2008 4:44 pm

CARLA;1057597 wrote: I have to believe he will fix education as he promised. I hold people to their promises and this is one of the biggest in my opinion. Our public schools are failing at an alarming rate it has to change and soon. If he can't fix education he won't be able to fix the rest of our problems as well. EDUCATION is #1 it alone will resolve some of our Nations issues. The more knowledge ones has the better equipped they are at dealing anything that comes their way.

I have to believe in President Obama we must if this country is to go forward.
Do you think the school system should be federalized? Wouldn't it be better if CA schools were run by Californians?

With a state the size of California, I'd feel alot better if its schools were broken into two or three independent regions.

chonsigirl · Post by **chonsigirl** » Fri Nov 14, 2008 5:54 pm

California schools are run by local school districts. The state university system is run by the state.

No, I do not think schools would be better off federalized. No Child Left Behind, AC, you know the validity of that within the system already. Teachers are now more restricted in what they teach-you must teach curriculum that will help them pass specific tests, not what you think would be a general enhancement of their knowledge.

Lon · Post by **Lon** » Fri Nov 14, 2008 5:58 pm

Accountable;1057399 wrote: For those who voted for Obama because of promises to "fix" the education system (which is the responsibility of individual states, not the federal gov't, by the way), you may find that they were standard pap of politics.

Complete Article hereDemocratic politicians like to see themselves as champions of public education; but when it comes to picking schools for their own children to attend, their support disappears. President-elect Obama is no different than hundreds of other Democratic elected officials across the nation, from members of Congress to big-city mayors and city council members. The president-elect's daughters have been in private schools in Chicago -- and all indications are that they will enroll in one of Washington's elite private schools when the family makes its big move to 1600 Pennsylvania Ave.

That's too bad because it insulates the Obamas from what other families must deal with: a failing public school system that resists genuine reform. And in Washington's case, it deprives a courageous new school chancellor of what would be her most powerful constituents, the First Family.

I don't look for Obama to impact anything re: Education in the first four years because it is a low priority in view of the multitude of other problems that his administration feels are of higher priority.

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Fri Nov 14, 2008 6:58 pm

chonsigirl;1058186 wrote: California schools are run by local school districts. The state university system is run by the state.

No, I do not think schools would be better off federalized. No Child Left Behind, AC, you know the validity of that within the system already. Teachers are now more restricted in what they teach-you must teach curriculum that will help them pass specific tests, not what you think would be a general enhancement of their knowledge.
Right. Also, NCLB is geared to send every child to college, so subjects that are not directly in line with that goal are getting "left behind." The result is that music & art, which help students think in ways traditional subjects can't, and trade skills courses, which keep lots of less academically minded students in school and off drugs, receive less and less priority in the budget.

Districts should plan their own curricula based on their unique circumstances. If the federal gov't is involved at all, it should be in a strictly statistical record-keeping capacity. No mandates.

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Fri Nov 14, 2008 6:59 pm

Lon;1058193 wrote: I don't look for Obama to impact anything re: Education in the first four years because it is a low priority in view of the multitude of other problems that his administration feels are of higher priority.
Yet you voted that he would fix education. :-2

southern yankee · Post by **southern yankee** » Fri Nov 14, 2008 7:56 pm

Something has to be done. My child graduated from high school in 00. But we have neighbors their children are still in Jr. & high school. It is horrible how under equipped these schools are!! Last year a friend of mine. the teacher would have to run off. pages for students to study. Because there were not enough books to go around. They are more concerned on the uniforms. the color of the coat. If it has a hood or not. Then if the student is prepared for the next grade. Pitiful:mad: La. i know ranks 49th in education. Which is a embarrassment in it self. The local university. Had the nick name of University of slow learners. We are one state who has the LEAP test for 5th and 9th graders. one test determines if they fail or pass that grade. If they fail there is a summer school class, they can take to prepare them. to take it again:mad:. But as a whole nation. We are a embarrassment compared to the other industrial nations,:( Children know who Brittney Spears is. But they have no clue of what the vice Presidents name is??

Lon · Post by **Lon** » Fri Nov 14, 2008 8:52 pm

southern yankee;1058278 wrote:

Children know who Brittney Spears is. But they have no clue of what the vice Presidents name is??

Unfortunately, that is true of many adults as well.

southern yankee · Post by **southern yankee** » Fri Nov 14, 2008 9:00 pm

Lon;1058316 wrote: Unfortunately, that is true of many adults as well. Maybe you are right Lon. But either way it is Pitiful:(

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Sat Nov 15, 2008 6:31 am

southern yankee;1058278 wrote: Something has to be done. My child graduated from high school in 00. But we have neighbors their children are still in Jr. & high school. It is horrible how under equipped these schools are!! Last year a friend of mine. the teacher would have to run off. pages for students to study. Because there were not enough books to go around. They are more concerned on the uniforms. the color of the coat. If it has a hood or not. Then if the student is prepared for the next grade. Pitiful:mad: La. i know ranks 49th in education. Which is a embarrassment in it self. The local university. Had the nick name of University of slow learners. We are one state who has the LEAP test for 5th and 9th graders. one test determines if they fail or pass that grade. If they fail there is a summer school class, they can take to prepare them. to take it again:mad:. But as a whole nation. We are a embarrassment compared to the other industrial nations,:( Children know who Brittney Spears is. But they have no clue of what the vice Presidents name is??
We call the same test TAKS here. If a ninth grader doesn't pass the reading TAKS he doesn't go on to high school. ... BUT the middle schools don't want to hurt the kid's self-esteem so they pass them anyway. I don't get how they can do that, but the reason is clear: stats! The middle schools get to look good because such a large number of their students pass, but the high schools look bad because the kids' scores are so low. Of course they're low; over half of our freshmen are in remedial reading classes while trying to struggle through literature, biology, world geography.

Stats drive the budgets, and the districts & schools forget that the budgets are there to help the students succeed.

Violetmay · Post by **Violetmay** » Sat Nov 15, 2008 6:39 am

All politicians make promises to the electorate, to be elected. But some look they are just talking the talk, but you know can't walk the walk. I believe he believes he can do it or bust a gut trying.

Anyone who puts themselves in the frame as a politician, esp on the scale of an American presidential election, deserves the chance to prove themselves don't they?

If they clearly hash things up, or have inherited a right pile of pooh, and all they can really do is a first aid job, isn't it good that someone is trying to do the right thing.

Like I said I don't know what is going on socially or politically in the states, so am not qualified to speak really, esp as there are so many states with such a diverse range of cultures therein. However he seems genuine, intelligent, and at the moment fresh for the fight to resolve the issues he has taken on.

southern yankee · Post by **southern yankee** » Sat Nov 15, 2008 6:53 am

Violetmay;1058562 wrote: All politicians make promises to the electorate, to be elected. But some look they are just talking the talk, but you know can't walk the walk. I believe he believes he can do it or bust a gut trying.

Anyone who puts themselves in the frame as a politician, esp on the scale of an American presidential election, deserves the chance to prove themselves don't they?

If they clearly hash things up, or have inherited a right pile of pooh, and all they can really do is a first aid job, isn't it good that someone is trying to do the right thing.

Like I said I don't know what is going on socially or politically in the states, so am not qualified to speak really, esp as there are so many states with such a diverse range of cultures therein. However he seems genuine, intelligent, and at the moment fresh for the fight to resolve the issues he has taken on. i am i wrong?/ doesn't Obama plan for his girls to go to PRIVATE schools??

Violetmay · Post by **Violetmay** » Sat Nov 15, 2008 7:19 am

southern yankee;1058604 wrote: i am i wrong?/ doesn't Obama plan for his girls to go to PRIVATE schools??

I don't know. See my disclaimer, ''Am not an expert on american politics''. This means I know little or nothing on the subject. But please feel free to teach me, cos I am genuinely interested.

If this is the case, I can see why this would send signals of, ''hypercritisim'', (is that a word I have made up). But maybe until state schools are of a standard he is happy with, he will send them there. When he removes them from the private schools, to demonstrate his faith in state education will be the acid test.

In the u.k we have labour m.p's who also take a similar stand, yet lead a lifestyle that reflects and I have to think about this, is it more republican? [someone help me on that .. I am looking for the conversion of 'conservativism'', to american] . And this with other signals lead us as the electorate or nonelectorate, to question whether our new labour was actually watered down conservative.

But with the privilege of living in the Whitehouse, the comfort, staff, lifestyle, and yes sending children to proven successful educational places, whether private or not, goes with the territory of the title. So does a president of liberal or democratic standards, have to decline this, to show he is still one of the people? Or do people accept some of the trappings that go with the role?

Sorry I went on.

southern yankee · Post by **southern yankee** » Sat Nov 15, 2008 7:40 am

Violetmay;1058703 wrote: I don't know. See my disclaimer, ''Am not an expert on american politics''. This means I know little or nothing on the subject. But please feel free to teach me, cos I am genuinely interested.

If this is the case, I can see why this would send signals of, ''hypercritisim'', (is that a word I have made up). But maybe until state schools are of a standard he is happy with, he will send them there. When he removes them from the private schools, to demonstrate his faith in state education will be the acid test.

In the u.k we have labour m.p's who also take a similar stand, yet lead a lifestyle that reflects and I have to think about this, is it more republican? [someone help me on that .. I am looking for the conversion of 'conservativism'', to american] . And this with other signals lead us as the electorate or nonelectorate, to question whether our new labour was actually watered down conservative.

But with the privilege of living in the Whitehouse, the comfort, staff, lifestyle, and yes sending children to proven successful educational places, whether private or not, goes with the territory of the title. So does a president of liberal or democratic standards, have to decline this, to show he is still one of the people? Or do people accept some of the trappings that go with the role?

Sorry I went on. but that is thing here. if you don't trust the school system to send your kids there. then. i don't know if there will be much change, with other choices??

Violetmay · Post by **Violetmay** » Sat Nov 15, 2008 7:45 am

southern yankee;1058761 wrote: but that is thing here. if you don't trust the school system to send your kids there. then. i don't know if there will be much change, with other choices??

Well. Here's the thing, his aim is to reform or improve education, sorry state education, and have no faith in it's current condition, you try to change it. Then you use it. I know I sound naive there, but maybe that is his aim. But I do see your point. Like I said many Brit M.P's of left/democratic lean still use the public school system. {that is private education}.

This is interesting.

southern yankee · Post by **southern yankee** » Sat Nov 15, 2008 7:47 am

violetmay;1058769 wrote: well. Here's the thing, his aim is to reform or improve education, sorry state education, and have no faith in it's current condition, you try to change it. Then you use it. I know i sound naive there, but maybe that is his aim. But i do see your point. Like i said many brit m.p's of left/democratic lean still use the public school system. {that is private education}.

This is interesting. very sad:(

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Sat Nov 15, 2008 8:08 am

Violetmay;1058562 wrote: Anyone who puts themselves in the frame as a politician, esp on the scale of an American presidential election, deserves the chance to prove themselves don't they?Absolutely, but when the reputation is already there of saying one thing and doing another, we have to take note of where he sends his own kids to school. He may be interested, but is he committed?

Violetmay wrote: If they clearly hash things up, or have inherited a right pile of pooh, and all they can really do is a first aid job, isn't it good that someone is trying to do the right thing. I argue that he's not trying to do the right thing. Neither was Bush, when it comes to education. Decisions and commitments regarding our kids' educations need to be kept at the closest possible level where priorities can be assessed and changed quickly as situations demand. Giving such monumental responsibility to slow disinterested bureaucracies is stupid.

Violetmay;1058703 wrote: If this is the case, I can see why this would send signals of, ''hypercritisim'', (is that a word I have made up). But maybe until state schools are of a standard he is happy with, he will send them there. When he removes them from the private schools, to demonstrate his faith in state education will be the acid test.One of the main issues the republican party supports is to permit parents to send their children to a different school if the one in their neighborhood is substandard. Obama's party is against such "no brainer" ideas, yet he does it himself. He rails against the rich, then follows their examples.

Violetmay wrote: But with the privilege of living in the Whitehouse, the comfort, staff, lifestyle, and yes sending children to proven successful educational places, whether private or not, goes with the territory of the title. So does a president of liberal or democratic standards, have to decline this, to show he is still one of the people? Or do people accept some of the trappings that go with the role?

Sorry I went on.I like your going on. :-6

My answer is yes, he should be willing to live as he wants his constituents to live. The White House with all its trappings are there to impress the rest of the world, not the US citizens. Remember that when we became a nation, all others were ruled by kings with the trappings of kings, who were impressed by glittery things as much as anything else. I think that the closer a US President shows himself to be to a "normal" guy, the more support he will get from the people.

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Sat Nov 15, 2008 8:09 am

southern yankee;1058604 wrote: i am i wrong?/ doesn't Obama plan for his girls to go to PRIVATE schools??

Yup. That's what the article indicates.

Violetmay · Post by **Violetmay** » Sat Nov 15, 2008 8:19 am

So as with any politics, if we have such mistrust of politians, who is fit to carry out election promises? Or do we just give up on having someone in charge. Someone has to be in reality. I'm suspicious of all brit ones. And don't blame anyone overseas being suspicious of their own either. Yet the hopeful soul in me, always gives every newly elected PM or President the benefit of the doubt until they stuff up.

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Sat Nov 15, 2008 9:26 am

Violetmay;1058804 wrote: So as with any politics, if we have such mistrust of politians, who is fit to carry out election promises? Or do we just give up on having someone in charge. Someone has to be in reality. I'm suspicious of all brit ones. And don't blame anyone overseas being suspicious of their own either. Yet the hopeful soul in me, always gives every newly elected PM or President the benefit of the doubt until they stuff up.
When it comes to anything so personal as education - or anything else that strikes so close to home - I don't want anyone in Washington to be able to miromanage to that degree, just as I'm sure you don't want EU politicians making decisions about British curricula.

southern yankee · Post by **southern yankee** » Sat Nov 15, 2008 6:11 pm

Hoss;1059238 wrote: Early care and education to infants? Why does educating an infant sound like the cradle part of cradle to grave socialism?

'Affordable High-Quality Child Care'- those are capitalized, do I see a new government acronym? 'AHQCC'. So do we take our kids to the White House so Obama and Biden can babysit?
I worked in day care for 25 years. I have to agree. with early childhood development. A child in day care is very much more advanced in lauange and social skills. Along with many other skills

Post by **Oscar Namechange** » Sat Nov 15, 2008 6:23 pm

southern yankee;1058278 wrote: Something has to be done. My child graduated from high school in 00. But we have neighbors their children are still in Jr. & high school. It is horrible how under equipped these schools are!! Last year a friend of mine. the teacher would have to run off. pages for students to study. Because there were not enough books to go around. They are more concerned on the uniforms. the color of the coat. If it has a hood or not. Then if the student is prepared for the next grade. Pitiful:mad: La. i know ranks 49th in education. Which is a embarrassment in it self. The local university. Had the nick name of University of slow learners. We are one state who has the LEAP test for 5th and 9th graders. one test determines if they fail or pass that grade. If they fail there is a summer school class, they can take to prepare them. to take it again:mad:. But as a whole nation. We are a embarrassment compared to the other industrial nations,:( Children know who Brittney Spears is. But they have no clue of what the vice Presidents name is??

The same all over i'm afraid. We have kids here who don't even know who the Prime Minister is and what's worse is they don't care.!!

southern yankee · Post by **southern yankee** » Sat Nov 15, 2008 6:26 pm

oscar;1059259 wrote: The same all over i'm afraid. We have kids here who don't even know who the Prime Minister is and what's worse is they don't care.!! sad:mad:

southern yankee · Post by **southern yankee** » Sat Nov 15, 2008 6:36 pm

Hoss;1059260 wrote: Do you have any studies to show that kids who went to day care and preschool do better academically than kids who did not?

It's one thing to say based on your experience that the kids have better language and social skills, but do they out perform other kids in education?

And then how do we PAY for it? No one is telling me where the money is coming from for this sweeping 'change'. I am going by my own experience. Being a 2 year old teacher for most of that time. You could really tell the difference. We have to do something about the way we educate our youth. We are falling farther and farther behind. How can a rich nation be SOOO STUPID??;)

southern yankee · Post by **southern yankee** » Sat Nov 15, 2008 7:05 pm

Hoss;1059283 wrote: That is one way to educate a child; a better way is to have the child stay at home under a parent who teaches them those skills. I'd much rather a child learn in an adult-child relationship rather than a child-child environment. When the kids are grouped togetherin similar age groups they learn more from each other than they do a teacher or caregiver and what they learn isn't always the best thing to learn.

It is not the government’s responsibility to educate a child; it is the parent’s responsibility. The more programs that the government offers to do this the more parents will give up their responsibility in education their own children.

Besides, if we can't afford to get individual books now, how are we going to afford 0-5 day care? Who can afford to stay home with their child theses days. June Cleaver days are sadly LONG GONE:( Also early childhood development is needed. in high risk homes. Where there is not a book or not one educational toy in sight. The only teacher is the BOOB TUBE. I knew the parents who spent quality time with their child. Then you could see the child who had no positive role models to help them grow and thrive. Children are our future.

southern yankee · Post by **southern yankee** » Sat Nov 15, 2008 7:37 pm

Hoss;1059303 wrote: I don't think they have to be long gone days. We should set it as a goal that only one parent works. Make it a law in fact.

Think about it. If only one parent could work there would be an over abundance of jobs. The price of goods and services could not go higher than what people could afford, or nobody would buy them. We would have kept the economy moving forward at a much slower pace and at the same time had parents home for kids, to educate them, help them with school work, to keep track of them and actually PARENT them.

We have it backwards, and we keep throwing more money on the problem saying thatâ€™s the way times are, but we created the times we live in by the choices we made. It's not very intelligent to keep throwing money down the same hole and expecting different results.

Barack Obama said 'change', but all I see is more of the exact same. i wish we could go back to the 40's and 50's. But that is just a lovely fairy tale. When my daughter was little i had to work. there was no choice. luckily i worked in day care. So she was in the same building with me. Not the same class. Now in your generation. How many women do you know who can afford to stay at home.

southern yankee · Post by **southern yankee** » Sat Nov 15, 2008 7:56 pm

Hoss;1059321 wrote: My parents did it, in a world that said if you don't have two incomes you can't survive. We did survive, we are surviving and we are even thriving. Because of hard work and cooperation and not buying things on credit and living within our means.

As my dad so often says, you have to learn to use less toilet paper per wipe and still get the job done.

I hear couples say they have to work, then look in their driveways at the three cars and boat and at the homes they have and the fact that they have more stuff in storage than we have in my entire home and say yeah, right you 'had' to have two incomes.

No, most couples donâ€™t have to have two incomes; they just aren't willing to live on one.

Not even for the sake of caring for and educating their own children. Well I wish you luck;)

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Sun Nov 16, 2008 5:17 am

southern yankee;1059255 wrote: I worked in day care for 25 years. I have to agree. with early childhood development. A child in day care is very much more advanced in lauange and social skills. Along with many other skills
That's not necessarily from day care. A younger sibling in a large family usually develops language and social skills faster than their older siblings, from my limited experience. For first or only children, more social situations, such as church or regular play dates, should do the trick just as well.

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Sun Nov 16, 2008 5:23 am

southern yankee;1058278 wrote: the teacher would have to run off. pages for students to study. Because there were not enough books to go around.
Hoss;1059283 wrote: if we can't afford to get individual books now, how are we going to afford 0-5 day care?
southern yankee;1059286 wrote: Who can afford to stay home with their child theses days.
southern yankee wrote: Children are our future.

Something's gotta give.

southern yankee · Post by **southern yankee** » Sun Nov 16, 2008 8:01 am

Accountable;1059506 wrote: That's not necessarily from day care. A younger sibling in a large family usually develops language and social skills faster than their older siblings, from my limited experience. For first or only children, more social situations, such as church or regular play dates, should do the trick just as well. yes from a loving well rounded home. But every child is not blessed with that.Had MANY students like That:(

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Sun Nov 16, 2008 11:29 am

southern yankee;1059597 wrote: yes from a loving well rounded home. But every child is not blessed with that.Had MANY students like That:(
Then THAT's what needs to be addressed: How many homes are not loving & well rounded and what if anything should be done about it. Dig for the roots of the problem so we don't waste all of our time & energy treating symptoms.

For instance, it seems we've all bypassed the question "How important is it for young children to be maximally advanced in language and social skills before entering elementary school?"

Here's another one: Where is the proof that the federal gov't is the best place to make decisions regarding the education of our children?

Post by **Oscar Namechange** » Sun Nov 16, 2008 12:15 pm

Hoss;1059283 wrote:

It is not the governmentâ€™s responsibility to educate a child; it is the parentâ€™s responsibility. The more programs that the government offers to do this the more parents will give up their responsibility in education their own children.

Sorry Hoss, i have to totally dis-agree with you here.

It benifits a child greatly if they are lucky enough to have parents that do educate their children pre-school. The truth is that in this country, and i am in no doubt it applys elsewhere, half of our country can not even read or write. We seem to have a 'middle generation' that is totally lacking in any shape or form to educate their children for them. It's one of the reasons why our government wants all children in nursery by the age of two. If half of the kids in this country are left to the education of the parents who have none themselves, we just breed the next generation of dumb idiots.

It is down to the government to ensure that every child from every walk of life has the benifit of the best education possible simply because the parents can not be relied on.

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Sun Nov 16, 2008 1:07 pm

oscar;1059845 wrote: Sorry Hoss, i have to totally dis-agree with you here.

It benifits a child greatly if they are lucky enough to have parents that do educate their children pre-school. The truth is that in this country, and i am in no doubt it applys elsewhere, half of our country can not even read or write. We seem to have a 'middle generation' that is totally lacking in any shape or form to educate their children for them. It's one of the reasons why our government wants all children in nursery by the age of two. If half of the kids in this country are left to the education of the parents who have none themselves, we just breed the next generation of dumb idiots.

It is down to the government to ensure that every child from every walk of life has the benifit of the best education possible simply because the parents can not be relied on.
How long has your government taken on responsibiity of educating the children of these unreliable illiterate parents? I'd wager that it's been more than a generation, as it has been here. That means that the government's only done a half-arse job. Shouldn't we at least consider that?

Post by **Oscar Namechange** » Sun Nov 16, 2008 8:37 pm

Accountable;1059877 wrote: How long has your government taken on responsibiity of educating the children of these unreliable illiterate parents? I'd wager that it's been more than a generation, as it has been here. That means that the government's only done a half-arse job. Shouldn't we at least consider that?

Without googling all the statistics, i would say generally that this generation is better educated than previous in this country.

We do have a perfectly legal opt out option here as well where parents can take their kids out of school and educate them themselves at home. Hardly anyone does this.

It should be considered that the government has done a half-arss job i agree but i just feel that it would be far worse if it were left to parents own inititive.

I would say one reason the government does it here, is so no child can ever say that they have been denied an education. Surely, we'd be taking a hell of a gamble, to let the government off the hook and rely on parents?

For one, we now live in a 'greed' society with the biggest house, the best car etc and mum and dad have to go go to work and hold down two full time jobs to pay for it. They can't have both.

K.Snyder · Post by **K.Snyder** » Sun Nov 16, 2008 11:17 pm

Accountable;1057399 wrote: For those who voted for Obama because of promises to "fix" the education system (which is the responsibility of individual states, not the federal gov't, by the way), you may find that they were standard pap of politics.

I have a huge problem with good being limited to those to whom can achieve it. The President of the United States of America should be permitted to influence all that which is good, otherwise you have a government harmonious around laziness. Unacceptable!

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Mon Nov 17, 2008 4:41 am

oscar;1060188 wrote: Without googling all the statistics, i would say generally that this generation is better educated than previous in this country.

We do have a perfectly legal opt out option here as well where parents can take their kids out of school and educate them themselves at home. Hardly anyone does this.

It should be considered that the government has done a half-arss job i agree but i just feel that it would be far worse if it were left to parents own inititive.

I would say one reason the government does it here, is so no child can ever say that they have been denied an education. Surely, we'd be taking a hell of a gamble, to let the government off the hook and rely on parents?

For one, we now live in a 'greed' society with the biggest house, the best car etc and mum and dad have to go go to work and hold down two full time jobs to pay for it. They can't have both.
The the responsibility is still left in the parents' hands on how to educate their children. Good. My point was and is that education is not the government's responsibility. We've delegated part of that responsibility to gov't, but the decision ultimately rests with the parents.