Discover the best of the web!
Learn more about Digg by taking the tour.
Barack Obama Unveils Education Plan
latimes.com — Manchester, N.H. -- Barack Obama proposed an $18-billion increase in federal education programs today.
ObamaforAmerica- 896 diggs
- digg it
- Kwashiorkor, on 11/21/2007, -84/+89That's it -- spend more money! Why didn't someone think of that before?! Can't wait to see his plan for fixing healthcare...
- BigBenKlingon, on 11/21/2007, -28/+11You might want to rethink your bias there: http://www.intelligentguess.com/blog/wp-content/up ...
So you see it as a problem when we try to fund education more robustly? Do you think we are too high or too low after looking at the following rankings: http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/edu_edu_spe_as_p ... ?- afruff23, on 11/21/2007, -6/+27Nice job using statistics incorrectly. % of government spending has nothing to do with the quality of education. In DC, they spend over $10K per kid, but they still ahve bad test scores. The problem is lack of competition, mainly caused by forcing poor people to go to public school and denying merit pay for teachers. Belgium let's you choose your own school and they have much better scores. See John Stossel's "Stupid in America" for more info.
- shortarabguy, on 11/21/2007, -11/+4Er... You're aware that there are private and charter schools and that you're allowed to enroll in those instead of public schools, right?
- Alpione, on 11/21/2007, -4/+20Yes, but you still have to pay for everyone else's kid (and yours) to go to public school. That's the problem and that's why vouchers or tax refunds are essential. Otherwise you're paying twice for your kid's education.
- jcastillo81, on 11/21/2007, -2/+4Vouchers are an interesting idea but flawed because the money that private schools receive from vouchers comes from Government and will certainly come with strings attached. IE. we'll give you this money to pay for these students IF you teach (insert stupid government idea here). Do away with DOE and open up the market and see what happens. What if the education market was as free as the computer technology market and kids were getting exponentially smarter every 3 months? There are solutions that none of us could imagine that would arise.
- afruff23, on 11/21/2007, -0/+3@jcastillo8
I never said to make education paid by students. My solution (which is actually Ron Paul's solution) is a tax credit to go to whatever school you want or homsechool. And just like you said, vouchers have strings attached. The tax credit system does not.
- shortarabguy, on 11/21/2007, -11/+4Er... You're aware that there are private and charter schools and that you're allowed to enroll in those instead of public schools, right?
- jmpeagle, on 11/21/2007, -2/+15huh? We still spend more per student than all but 2 countries
http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/edu_spe_per_sec_ ...- oldhick, on 11/21/2007, -7/+14Don't let the facts ***** up Diggers. They believe spending more government money solves any and all issues!!!
- Tomchei, on 11/21/2007, -2/+17Get rid of the Department of Education. It's making our kids ignorant.
The city of Atlanta spends $14,000 per kid and they have the lowest test scores.
The education system needs an attitude change, not money - except to pay the good teachers more.
- thirdoffive, on 11/21/2007, -0/+5I think John Stossel does a good job of showing that throwing cash at the problem doesn't fix things. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DkUjRGnFUe8
There needs to be competition so flawed institutions fail before they ruin more students. - swordedge, on 11/21/2007, -0/+3your chart proves nothing. Japan is ranked higher than us and according to your link, spends only 10% GDP vs 17% here. More money is not the solution.
- afruff23, on 11/21/2007, -6/+27Nice job using statistics incorrectly. % of government spending has nothing to do with the quality of education. In DC, they spend over $10K per kid, but they still ahve bad test scores. The problem is lack of competition, mainly caused by forcing poor people to go to public school and denying merit pay for teachers. Belgium let's you choose your own school and they have much better scores. See John Stossel's "Stupid in America" for more info.
- fadeout, on 11/21/2007, -31/+51God forbid we spent more money on education and maybe catch up with the rest of the world. The Air Force is spending 63 BILLION on just the first batch of f-22's, this kind of money is nothing to the federal government.
- epicstruggle, on 11/21/2007, -11/+27We spend more per student than almost any other country, the results arent very good for what we spend. Ive already saved enough to make sure my daughter goes to private/kipp schools when she gets old enough.
- Alpione, on 11/21/2007, -7/+20That's the point, fadeout... Throwing money at education has been shown time and time again to fail. Someone above had it right - competition and school choice are the only ways to improve the situation.
- jakeson2, on 11/21/2007, -19/+8Those F22 fighters may make the difference whether any children you or your family might have in the future will be educated in Farsi and will have to bow and scrape to the Mullahs. Get a life and look globally, you liberals all want to think global warming, yet you can't see global threats to our selves.
- FasterGun, on 11/21/2007, -3/+5Ahaahahahahaahah
- abuelos84, on 11/21/2007, -3/+6ROFL!
- nirav72, on 11/21/2007, -4/+6tell me you're not serious? ***** idiot.
- MixMastaKooz, on 11/21/2007, -3/+5Yea, I can see that great Caliphate Armada off the coast! We need to be careful of those Muslim Marines storming our beaches! Wow! Look at all of them! pffft. Morons.
- janeuner, on 11/21/2007, -2/+8Yes, the Air Force spent 63 billion on air superiority fighter jets. Supposedly, they are the best in the world. The cost/benefit was high, but it is measurable.
However, spending an extra $300 per student...to do what? How does an extra $300 help? Tell me exactly what you want to spend it on, show me the cost/benefit, and I will consider it. Otherwise, its just more deficit.- fiestycrumbler, on 11/21/2007, -3/+1bahahahhaha fighter jets alone make the point
- SouthsideIrish, on 11/23/2007, -1/+2No amount of money will help the education will help the US education system.
- NSResponder, on 11/21/2007, -1/+6The USA outspends most other countries per capita on schooling, including Germany and Japan. We don't get what we pay for now, so why would you imagine that rewarding the NEA for their incompetence will improve their performance?
-jcr - TheTaoOfBill, on 11/21/2007, -3/+8If we were going to spend it on education I'd rather see the money split up between the states to decide for their selves how to improve the education system. How does the federal government know how to improve Hawaii, or Michigan or Texas. The federal government doesn't know how to solve our local problems.
- Humptydank, on 11/21/2007, -2/+4This *is* money being split up among the states. Most of the initiatives are goal-based grant programs where the money goes to the states if they reach minimum requirements. It augments the state's efforts in education. There's a link to the actual plan itself in the article. Feel free to read it.
The only reason the federal government has to provide these grants at all is because the states have had a long record of ineffectiveness when it comes to the schools, and have shown a willingness to cut funding when times are tough to pay for other things in the budget, even though it results in kids who can't read. If you have a strong tax base, you get good schools; poor tax base, bad schools.
The theory of the government grants is that no one gets hit harder when it comes to education than the poor, people who can't (as I've been told by others in the past) just "get up and move" if they don't like the schools. Ironically, however, the best way to get out of poverty is education, so when state legislatures cut funding for text books to maintain a tax break for technology companies in their state, they've locked in a long-term cycle.
The federal government can, through funded and unfunded mandates, set at least a minimum level of performance for schooling that every state must meet. And it should, because it's more than a state-by-state issue, it's about a minimum quality of universal education that is directly in the national interest.- TheTaoOfBill, on 11/21/2007, -1/+2So your solution is if a state doesn't meet standards they get less money so they have to fire more teachers and purchase less text books and give them a harder time meeting the goals set by the nation
Forgive me for saying that that is utter *****.
Funding should depend on population density. That's it. Stop turning our schools into a game show for the cash prize. - Humptydank, on 11/21/2007, -1/+2@TheTaoOfBill:
Population density alone?
So a state can take the grant money and spend it all on daily picnic trips for all the students, while they don't have text books and are still producing high-schoolers who can't read, and there would be no punitive element to getting federal funds?
How does that work? You're assuming that federal dollars are allocated and spent at the state and local level by non-political, always-forthright people with no competing agendas. History does not bear you out on that.
You're suggesting no other standard but population density? That turns it from a game show into a trust fund, because then the cash prize comes with no strings attached. And nobody's more known for being ambitious and inquisitive achievers than kids with a trust fund. - TheTaoOfBill, on 11/21/2007, -1/+2@Humptydank
Yeah if they want to get fired. That's why in most states we elect school board members. We don't need the federal government to regulate where the money goes. We can do that ourselves. Like I said we're the only ones who could possibly know where is the best place to spend money. What if a state is doing particularly bad in manufactoring. Maybe they could invest more in shop classes. What if there is an obesity problem in the state. They could invest more in PE classes. What if there is an academics problem in the state. Well they can invest in more math science english and social studies classes.
The federal government cannot possibly make decisions on where the money should go when they cannot possibly understand the local issues involved from hundreds if not thousands of miles away. It is just asking for our schools to be slowed down because of bureaucracy. - Humptydank, on 11/21/2007, -1/+2@TheTaoOfBill:
That's all great philosophy, but it ignores the reality of the situation. Yes, all the things you mentioned would be wonderful, but the reason the federal government has to set standards and put performance requirements on money is because it had to step in on a failing national education system that was run by the states and localities.
New Jersey has the highest tax base in the country, Louisiana has the lowest. But we all feel that no matter the state of manufacturing or obesity in any particular state, kids have a right to be schooled to a minimum standard of math, science, English, and social studies. They shouldn't be mislead by bad education, they shouldn't have important subjects left out, and they shouldn't be able to slip by without being given the education they were promised.
Look, I'd love the federal government to be out of education. I'd like it not to be necessary. All your suggestions are great theories, but they have nothing to do with the reality as it is now, and they certainly don't have anything to do with the way the world would be if you removed federal aid and performance requirements.
- TheTaoOfBill, on 11/21/2007, -1/+2So your solution is if a state doesn't meet standards they get less money so they have to fire more teachers and purchase less text books and give them a harder time meeting the goals set by the nation
- fknc, on 11/21/2007, -1/+2Schools already fight for federal funding by trying to improve standardized test scores, etc. They must employ federal policy and meet federal requirements in order to receive this money. Any system where schools must fight for federal money, regardless of what the goals or requirements are, will not have the student's or parent's best interests in mind.
- Humptydank, on 11/21/2007, -2/+4This *is* money being split up among the states. Most of the initiatives are goal-based grant programs where the money goes to the states if they reach minimum requirements. It augments the state's efforts in education. There's a link to the actual plan itself in the article. Feel free to read it.
- Humptydank, on 11/21/2007, -1/+1Actually, God forbidding it was the Bush Administration's strategy.
- brstilson, on 11/21/2007, -18/+54It's funny that you decry Obama for wanting to spend a measley $18 billion on our children's education when Bush has already spent $700 billion on a war that nobody wants.
- cranium, on 11/21/2007, -3/+6...which means we *really* can't afford it, right Lightin'?
- rotten777, on 11/21/2007, -4/+9Who said he was for the Iraq/Iran/Afghanistan wars? You can be anti-war and pro-small government. It's called being a traditional Republican.
- bratpack8, on 11/21/2007, -2/+6Who said some of us can't be AGAINST BOTH?
- Scheissen, on 11/21/2007, -1/+2WTF that was completely random *****
- kaelyiesta, on 11/21/2007, -1/+5I cannot believe how many idiots decided to digg up a counter argument with no validity. Wake up. Justification for expenditure is not based on it being less than some other expenditure. It's depends on the money being used well. Do some ***** research on our education costs and you will see that we already burn through more money per kid than any other country. It is not working. We need to change the system, not how much money we through at it. Stop digging ***** you don't even bother to learn about.
- SouthsideIrish, on 11/23/2007, -0/+2And we can't change the system until we get the Federal Government and NEA out of the schools. Let NEA schools compete with the sisters and other private schools.
- wendelgee2, on 11/21/2007, -6/+42There are things that funding CAN do, and things that funding CANNOT.
Here's what money can do:
1. Well-compensated teachers = motivated teachers.
2. Teacher training.
3. Smaller class sizes.
Here's what money cannot do:
1. Make kids give a *****.
2. Foster a culture that values education.
Unfortunately, the bottom list is more powerful than the top list; unfortunately, the gov't can do something about the top list, and can't do ***** about the bottom list.- rotten777, on 11/21/2007, -2/+4The government can set it up so everything that is of age who wants to go to college, can get into college and not have to worry about ending their college career 6 digits in debt. I know quite a few people who don't go to college because they can't afford it. This day and age, with all our technology, that shouldn't happen at all.
- wendelgee2, on 11/21/2007, -3/+1Absolutely. Imagine the horizons that would open up for kids if they knew they could go to college, that it wasn't a matter of money.
But what's the bill for that? Can they only go to public schools? Will that result in overcrowding? Would the entrance requirements remain the same? - albrad84, on 11/21/2007, -1/+16 figures??? Unless you already have high financial obligations (like multiple kids), then anybody in this country who is willing to work hard can go to college and graduate (at a good school) without anywhere close to that much debt. If you can't, then you are not trying very hard.
- senatorpjt, on 11/21/2007, -0/+1You'd probably only end up five figures in debt. Unless you were in a field where you need a graduate degree, like science or medicine, but who needs them.
- Totalchaos02, on 11/21/2007, -0/+2I'm a first year college student a money was a major factor in me almost not going to school. I got into the school of my choice but I just can't go because it costs too much, even with the amount of financial aid I received. It's is sad that people have to cut off their education because of money. For everyone who is lucky enough to make it, there are a handful more who just can't and that isn't right.
- SouthsideIrish, on 11/23/2007, -0/+1Imagine a world where your child doesn't graduate deeply in debt with a BS, the swear word, degree in something that will never get him employed. I know lots of store managers, deeply in debt, with degrees they will never use.
- wendelgee2, on 11/21/2007, -3/+1Absolutely. Imagine the horizons that would open up for kids if they knew they could go to college, that it wasn't a matter of money.
- deciblast, on 11/21/2007, -0/+3Reality just called... college tuition is at all time highs and during my attendance doubled. I doubt this education spending bill will do anything for that. California's higher education plan in 1960 was designed to give free higher education to all students that qualified. Guess who screwed that up? ....Regan and our ungrateful parents.
- MixMastaKooz, on 11/21/2007, -0/+2Teacher training is probably the most overlooked expense. Teachers are professionals who need to be on top of their game, but we expect someone who graduated college 20 to 30 years ago to be on top of things?
But I also think the government could foster a culture that values education: look at the space race in the 60's and what it did for science and technology education. I think our government could *at minimum* try to influence the culture more so than it does now. - laplacian, on 11/22/2007, -0/+21. Well compensated teachers =/= motivated teachers since the NEA distributes funds based on seniority and not on ability.
- wiihuck, on 11/23/2007, -0/+1intrinsic motivation > $$ motivation
- rotten777, on 11/21/2007, -2/+4The government can set it up so everything that is of age who wants to go to college, can get into college and not have to worry about ending their college career 6 digits in debt. I know quite a few people who don't go to college because they can't afford it. This day and age, with all our technology, that shouldn't happen at all.
- fractalman, on 11/21/2007, -2/+12The more money we give to the education system, the bigger the bureaucracy grows and less money actually gets to the educators. "No Child left Behind" is working real good....NOT. The only thing gained by the creation of the federal department of education is, the feds now have control over the schools. How well is that working out? Control of education needs to be returned to the states. Only then can people have any type of influence over their local education system. As long as the feds fund education, they control education, and dictate what is taught in the classroom.
- afidler, on 11/22/2007, -1/+1"No Child left Behind" is working real good....NOT."
funny that you used 'good' and not 'well.'
thus, proving your point.
- afidler, on 11/22/2007, -1/+1"No Child left Behind" is working real good....NOT."
- UnstableMind, on 11/21/2007, -0/+5"oh billions of dollars is there no dispute you can't settle?"
- BigBenKlingon, on 11/21/2007, -28/+11You might want to rethink your bias there: http://www.intelligentguess.com/blog/wp-content/up ...
- fadeout, on 11/21/2007, -27/+76I am not exactly excited about his suggestion of cuts to NASA for education. Our inability to even match Russia these days is pretty pathetic.
- TyroPyro, on 11/21/2007, -12/+26I was really disappointed by this too. Cutting NASA's funding to pay for education to produce better scientists/engineers makes no sense.
- cashman57, on 11/21/2007, -5/+18I agree . Why would you cut a program that is necessary for recruiting young people into the ranks of scientists and engineers. When every liftoff had coverage on all of the channels more than half of elementary school kids wanted to get into NASA.
I don't understand what the rookie was thinking on that one. - killakan, on 11/21/2007, -2/+10Well, you know, most people don't see a need for NASA and think it is funded at the same level as the Defense Dept.
- cwright213, on 11/21/2007, -10/+0I believe half of NASA is a waste of money. Yeah we can put satellites up and develop tools to help our country, but putting Optimus Prime on mars to go muddin is a waste of money.
- kaimana, on 11/21/2007, -3/+7Are you guys kidding? What does it matter if we have a great NASA program but no intelligent humans to do anything with it? We first need to make sure young people are being educated so that NASA even has a chance for a future. Don't be so short sighted. Without intelligent people, NASA isn't much good.
- afidler, on 11/22/2007, -0/+1"Cutting NASA's funding to pay for education to produce better scientists/engineers makes no sense"
that's the dumbest sentence I've ever read.
- cashman57, on 11/21/2007, -5/+18I agree . Why would you cut a program that is necessary for recruiting young people into the ranks of scientists and engineers. When every liftoff had coverage on all of the channels more than half of elementary school kids wanted to get into NASA.
- dinostabOMG, on 11/21/2007, -10/+56In Soviet Russia, education spending helps YOU!
But seriously, you're more worried about a dick-measuring contest with Russia than you are about basic education?- dinostabOMG, on 11/21/2007, -4/+14I'll add that in the same sentence, the article says he's suggesting cutting spending from the occupation of Iraq. There's a no-brainer for you, the biggest and most unnecessary area of spending that's bleeding us dry? 18 billion is a drop in the bucket compared to what we could free up from Iraq. If it's necessary, I think astronauts can wait five more years to get to the moon.... AGAIN. Or are we worried about falling behind China as well in our essential mission of dicking around in space?
- fadeout, on 11/21/2007, -0/+3That "dick-measuring contest" gave us huge developments in everything from microwaves to plastics to computers.
- afidler, on 11/22/2007, -0/+1all which made us smarter in the process.
tang, joysticks, computers and microwaves...sounds like the perfect combination for a lazy computer game player. pop in a hot pocket, mix up the tang and play some flight simulator. - dinostabOMG, on 11/22/2007, -1/+1Sure. But at the expense of 4th grade reading skills?
- afidler, on 11/22/2007, -0/+1all which made us smarter in the process.
- brstilson, on 11/21/2007, -3/+10Oh no, we're not as good at space as Russia! Whatever shall we do?!?!?!?!
- uziko, on 11/21/2007, -6/+2Huh? Nasa is just for entertainment purposes, since when does nasa educate people to get good jobs and make more money?
- mrmet06, on 11/21/2007, -1/+2You're so right on...I've said for years NASA's budget needs to be cut. Besides satellites, wtf else do we need for them to do. No one is ever going to ***** mars....
- d1a1s1, on 11/21/2007, -0/+2A lot of the satellites are actually covered by the US Airforce.
- SouthsideIrish, on 11/23/2007, -0/+2Don't worry about space. The private sector will do what NASA can't or won't do, and that is to develop that vehicles we need to get to the moon. Of course it will be for the super rich to go on nice vacations, but NASA will end up buying the technology.
- mrmet06, on 11/21/2007, -1/+2You're so right on...I've said for years NASA's budget needs to be cut. Besides satellites, wtf else do we need for them to do. No one is ever going to ***** mars....
- Humptydank, on 11/21/2007, -0/+3So if you keep funding NASA, but cut funding to the schools, who will run NASA in thirty years?
Our asset is not the spaceships, it's the brains that built them. We're in one of the most disturbing (in cost and cause) financial crises of our age, and we need to sort out essentials from non-essentials. I understand the benefits of the space program as much as anyone, maybe more so, but when it comes to that or making sure every kid has at least a decent education, the moon can wait. - ingenium21, on 11/21/2007, -0/+3I don't think you people understand the benefits of a good education program. Right now we are one of the least educated countries when it comes to math and science, and yet we're supposed to me the most developed. Also, as for NASA, there are already plans for the privatization of space exploration. He is not cutting funds completely from NASA, he is cutting funds from human space exploration. All the good things that NASA does are still being done.
- americanuck, on 11/21/2007, -1/+2We need to go to the moon again.. why?
- 1337Einstein, on 11/21/2007, -1/+2You're absolutely right, we need more uneducated assholes in space.
- TyroPyro, on 11/21/2007, -12/+26I was really disappointed by this too. Cutting NASA's funding to pay for education to produce better scientists/engineers makes no sense.
- jmpeagle, on 11/21/2007, -9/+68how come parents in this country are not allowed to choose which public school they want to send their kids too? The Netharlands, Belgium, etc... all allow parents the choice.
Also, why do we start trying to teach children earlier than other countries. It seems like he wants to expand pre-schooling. This all looks like government funded day care and will have no effect on the education system at all. We could learn a lot from the European countries who ironically have a much less socialized schools system than we do.- shortarabguy, on 11/21/2007, -11/+18First question: Because part of their purpose( along with providing the schools) is allocating space in each classroom. Where I went to school there were around 3 high schools in a mile or 2-mile radius because one school would never have been enough to handle everyone. If you allowed the people to choose, they'd all flood into one school, or they would flood into a school that's not necessarily closer to their home.
As for your comparison to other nations, looking at Finland( which, according to article 1, is ranked first in reading literacy and consistently scored higher than the US in mathematics and sciences), you'll see that they have compulsory education for 9 years starting at age 7, fully funded by the government and accomplished by sending the kid to the local school. After that 9 years, they go to secondary school depending on their test scores, either on track for a 3-part education( for higher learning), or 2-part( which is geared more toward vocational education skills).
Tl;Dr They're considerably socialized. Their laws clearly favor public schools over private schools, and they require you to go to the school which they designate. Also, for what it's worth, studies tend to show that kids do better if they go to pre-school, as it helps them with Kindergarten, which helps them through elementary school, etc...
It's not a problem that the system is there at all, it's HOW the system accomplishes its goals.
article 1: http://www.siteselection.com/ssinsider/snapshot/sf ...
just for ***** and giggles: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Education_in_Finland- abuelos84, on 11/21/2007, -3/+3why did someone dugg this guy down without commenting the reason? morons...
I fully agree with what he is saying, i think all school should be public, there is no logical reason to create private schools, beyond creating an elitist society, of course...- phil.busch, on 11/21/2007, -1/+3As someone who is largely the product of private schools, I can explain why it is logical to create private schools. Suppose you want your son to specialize in math and science. However, the local high school doesn't offer much in terms of advanced science classes, such as AP Bio, AP Chem, etc... But a little further down the road, the private high school offers all these courses and more. You can afford the private school. Where would you send your son?
It's logical to have private school so if someone doesn't like the way the public school is educating one has the choice to find a better way. - sherrife, on 11/22/2007, -0/+1@ Phil.Busch - You could send him (or your daughter for that matter) to the private school. Or, you could speak to your child's teachers, get involved with the PTA and the school board, and invest some time and energy into improving your local school - for your own children and for the children of others with less free time and money. Others for whom the private school will never be an option.
I guess that's where I feel the real tragedy of a parallel private education system lies. It systematically absorbs the parents that give a ***** (/can afford to give a *****/can understand the language the ***** is being packaged in) from the public system, leaving public schools without invaluable community support.
- phil.busch, on 11/21/2007, -1/+3As someone who is largely the product of private schools, I can explain why it is logical to create private schools. Suppose you want your son to specialize in math and science. However, the local high school doesn't offer much in terms of advanced science classes, such as AP Bio, AP Chem, etc... But a little further down the road, the private high school offers all these courses and more. You can afford the private school. Where would you send your son?
- SouthsideIrish, on 11/23/2007, -0/+1Oh, come shortarabguy! When too many people move into a school district they add more classrooms or build a new school. This happens every year as people move further out from Chicago. We have had districts that have built new high schools and split the town in half, sending kids to different schools. If you had choice the successful schools would do the same.
- abuelos84, on 11/21/2007, -3/+3why did someone dugg this guy down without commenting the reason? morons...
- evilesttoast, on 11/21/2007, -5/+3I go to PLD which is the best high school in Lexington and everybody tries to go there. If we let anyone go there, it would be overfilled.
- cwright213, on 11/21/2007, -2/+2Those two were absolutely right. Think about it. you kid goes to the best school in the district he's getting good grades, they have the best football program in the state.The best of everything. Then the Rules change. Your kid now doesn't have just 15 kids in his class he has 50. In that 50 you have 10 kids that cause distractions every day, not to mention the bully in the class sitting next to your kid so he's now afraid to raise his hand for questions or to answer one. How would you feel? Well.... you could move
- heartcoldfusion, on 11/21/2007, -2/+7The above three comments make strong arguments for competition in schools. This is why people want the government to stop running schools. If there was competition, then there would be incentive for the principals to hire good teachers, there would be incentive for the teachers to teach well, and there would be incentive for parents to be involved in their children's education. The incentive of course is money. If principals ran good schools, they'd get more money from people going there, if teachers taught well, they'd get more money from people wanting them to come to their school, and if parents are choosing the school their kids go to, they have a vested interest in making sure they get a return on their investment.
It's not the nicest idea or the most utopian, but it works well within the framework of our economy. - Crosshare, on 11/21/2007, -0/+5We wouldn't have that problem if tax money for education was spread evenly by the state rather than district by district. Of course the lower income neighborhoods are going to have poorly funded schools. There can be a huge disparity in schools that are 20 miles apart in some areas. My town being one of them. MTV (I know, I know) did a news report in Chicago on this. The poorest schools were getting next to no funding, then you drive out to the rich suburbs of Chicago in some of the wealthiest areas, and the public schools had Olympic swimming pools, and automated batting cages. How screwed up is that?
- Yang1205, on 11/22/2007, -0/+1I live in south west FL and we do have school choice.
- wiihuck, on 11/23/2007, -1/+1never heard of open enrollment?
- shortarabguy, on 11/21/2007, -11/+18First question: Because part of their purpose( along with providing the schools) is allocating space in each classroom. Where I went to school there were around 3 high schools in a mile or 2-mile radius because one school would never have been enough to handle everyone. If you allowed the people to choose, they'd all flood into one school, or they would flood into a school that's not necessarily closer to their home.
- SCharb, on 11/21/2007, -24/+66Right now, teachers are grossly underpaid. More money for teachers, more incentives, better teachers. Simple.
- shortarabguy, on 11/21/2007, -8/+13I don't know why you got dugg down, you're absolutely right. Ideally, a renowned physicist would teach advanced high school students higher-level physics, but these people don't do anything for the paltry sum that most public schools can offer. In the private sector they can get so much more because( and only because) they're producing some output which is worth more money. Kids are difficult to valuate, but the next breakthrough in curing cancer could be estimated at several hundred million dollars, easily. Schools( private or public) can't usually afford to compete with private research organizations, so they get the best that they can. Private institutions currently only have better teachers on average because the people actively taking their kids out of the public system and into the private one are more likely to pay more per year for the professors of their children.
- Alpione, on 11/21/2007, -1/+8One part of your post that isn't true is that private schools pay their teachers more than public. That's true in some cases, but here in Atlanta it's not. Some teachers go to public schools to get more money, while others go to private schools for better working conditions, better students, etc.
- killakan, on 11/21/2007, -2/+7You are putting the cart before the horse. Most teachers don't have a degree in the subjects they teach. They have a degree in education, which is one of the easiest degrees to get.
How about requiring teachers either minor in or have a degree in the course they want to teach? Or even creating a kind of add-on to education degrees for each subject?- wendelgee2, on 11/21/2007, -1/+2An ed. degree should cut it for k-6, but 6-12 should require a major in the field.
- cranium, on 11/21/2007, -2/+15All the ***** ones have tenure.
- jakeson2, on 11/21/2007, -0/+8That is so TRUE. It is shameful that we allow teachers unions to destroy our children's education by allowing the tenure of bad teachers. One said teachers are underpaid. I cannot DISAGREE MORE STRONGLY. Most teachers in our schools are making more than the average worker subject to layoffs, firing etc. Yet teachers get 3 months off every year and get paid for it. Teachers unions and tenure MUST GO.
- pyromanx, on 11/21/2007, -0/+4That is the ***** (or awesome) thing about government jobs. You have to do a lot to get fired. Do you job half-ass and you'll be around until you want to leave. One of the problems with government involvement with things.
- SouthsideIrish, on 11/23/2007, -0/+1No tenure in private schools.
- jakeson2, on 11/21/2007, -0/+8That is so TRUE. It is shameful that we allow teachers unions to destroy our children's education by allowing the tenure of bad teachers. One said teachers are underpaid. I cannot DISAGREE MORE STRONGLY. Most teachers in our schools are making more than the average worker subject to layoffs, firing etc. Yet teachers get 3 months off every year and get paid for it. Teachers unions and tenure MUST GO.
- sunchild, on 11/21/2007, -2/+8Right now, teachers are the dregs of society. First, you have to fire them all. Then you raise salaries and re-hire based on stringent qualifications. We need to get rid of the idiots in schools who sit at the front of the room before anything will improve.
- heartcoldfusion, on 11/21/2007, -1/+5Can't fire. Teachers unions. ***** teachers have jobs for life. Our country keeps getting dumber.
- deciblast, on 11/21/2007, -0/+2My operating systems teacher was probably one of the best teachers I had at my university but because he lacked research they didn't hire him for the next term. Next semester, they made one of the worst teachers I've had part of the department staff because of her research. I don't think more money will help this situation.
- brad3378, on 11/21/2007, -0/+4Where I'm from, Teachers are paid by property taxes. What teachers are paid is a local issue - not a federal issue.
- redone, on 11/21/2007, -4/+1Alex Rodriguez is worth 27.5 million a year, plus bonuses, but our teachers are worth 27.5 *thousand* a year. So, in our society's eyes, a baseball player is worth a thousand teachers. That is so, so, so screwed up. I support spending more on education, but it's a societal value issue that is the bigger problem here.
- wiihuck, on 11/23/2007, -1/+1keeping pay "low" keeps gold diggers out of the profession.
- shortarabguy, on 11/21/2007, -8/+13I don't know why you got dugg down, you're absolutely right. Ideally, a renowned physicist would teach advanced high school students higher-level physics, but these people don't do anything for the paltry sum that most public schools can offer. In the private sector they can get so much more because( and only because) they're producing some output which is worth more money. Kids are difficult to valuate, but the next breakthrough in curing cancer could be estimated at several hundred million dollars, easily. Schools( private or public) can't usually afford to compete with private research organizations, so they get the best that they can. Private institutions currently only have better teachers on average because the people actively taking their kids out of the public system and into the private one are more likely to pay more per year for the professors of their children.
- KingCook, on 11/21/2007, -5/+10A program that rewards the teachers when students show progress. So good teachers are rewarded when this will stimulate competition between the teachers and give the teachers more incentive to helping the ones who have got room for improvement ... The students should also be rated on their evolution more then on their grades I think
- PeppermintPig, on 11/21/2007, -2/+10"A program that rewards the teachers when students show progress."
They call that the free market, and it doesn't require a predesignated program to work. - josh4rim, on 11/21/2007, -1/+3I think that is called "No child left behind" Seems to be working pretty good......NOT!
- dalittle, on 11/21/2007, -0/+1The problem with that is that it requires a good method of measurement. This is very difficult to do and it seems all that politicians and administrators are really interested in is to be able to look at all the students on one sheet of paper. Good teachers are what would make schools better. Raise salaries and make being a teacher more attractive to competent people and there will be better results.
- laplacian, on 11/22/2007, -0/+1The teacher's union would not allow this.
- PeppermintPig, on 11/21/2007, -2/+10"A program that rewards the teachers when students show progress."
- cashman57, on 11/21/2007, -24/+17Obama suggested cutting spending on the Iraq war, delaying sending astronauts to the moon by five years, auctioning surplus federal property and closing a tax loophole for chief executives.................
Cutting spending on the Iraq use of force means he will continue the use of force. Cutting back on NASA means he wants to run the space program from the White House and closing a loophole means raising taxes.
Does anyone think that's how to run a country?
The bigggest problem with education is not spending, it is discipline.
The biggest reason kids are not learning is parental involvement.
Clearly Obama has no plans to fix those two and if you don't fix those two all of the borrowed money in the world won't help.- Snuff99, on 11/21/2007, -9/+1Face it, American blood has been spilled, we'll be in Iraq for years to come no matter who takes office.
Cutting funds to NASA simply means they'll have to do more with less for 5yrs.
And your two problems with education can't be fix by the government. The government shouldn't discipline our children and should'nt try and force parents to be involved.
It may not be the best way to run a country but it may be what needs to be effin done. I think this man is giving us the hard truths.
- Snuff99, on 11/21/2007, -9/+1Face it, American blood has been spilled, we'll be in Iraq for years to come no matter who takes office.
- PeppermintPig, on 11/21/2007, -31/+37Obama's children attend private school. And yet he thinks throwing money at a problem will fix it? What a joker!
- cwright213, on 11/21/2007, -9/+4what's your suggestion? heck send it to him. It's better than not funding education.
- PeppermintPig, on 11/21/2007, -0/+2Most politicians want to look like heroes, making promises, then using tax dollars and taking credit for the results... that said, I don't think Obama wants to know what I think because it wouldn't be popular for his demographic. Sorry I can't support these 'pizza party' tax and spenders.
- geddon, on 11/21/2007, -1/+1Don't like sharing your pizza, huh?
- PeppermintPig, on 11/21/2007, -0/+2Most politicians want to look like heroes, making promises, then using tax dollars and taking credit for the results... that said, I don't think Obama wants to know what I think because it wouldn't be popular for his demographic. Sorry I can't support these 'pizza party' tax and spenders.
- wheresthevan, on 11/21/2007, -0/+8i send my kids to private school too... the public school systems in most places are a joke compared to private schools where teachers make more and parents are more involved...
hmmmmmmm....- senatorpjt, on 11/21/2007, -0/+7I went to a private school, but the teachers made less than public schools. My impression is that the ones in the private schools wanted to teach, while the public school teachers got into it because they get summers off.
- geddon, on 11/21/2007, -2/+3Private schools reveal that Education in our Capitalist society is a complete failure. Simply educating the rich is an abomination of Humanity.
- sunchild, on 11/21/2007, -1/+7News flash: if you want to be successful in a nepotist society like ours, you have to join all the right clubs. Public school isn't going to cut it in NYC or Washington.
- nickv, on 11/21/2007, -1/+2Except in NYC some of the best high schools (with the best alumni networks) are public -- like Stuyvesant, Hunter, and Bronx Science.
- Humptydank, on 11/21/2007, -1/+1Sorry nickv, but I agree with sunchild.
I live in NYC and have several friends who teach at Stuyvesant. I've never visited Stuyvesant, but I have seen the 1995 movie "Dangerous Minds" with Michelle Pfeiffer, and I can only assume that that halls of Stuyvesant are filled with the same sort of thugs, who show no respect and use profanities. Not to mention Bronx Science -- it's in the Bronx for God's sake.
I can assure you that there's no room for people who show no respect and use profanities in the refined salon of the New York business world.
- engrishGamer, on 11/21/2007, -4/+1Maybe they attend private schools because he feels the public schools aren't up to their standards? Did you ever consider this very blatant and obvious fact? And throwing money will, to an extent, fix the problem. Part of the reason good teachers aren't attracted to certain schools is because of the pay (and the environment/neighborhood which aren't justified based on the pay there).
- PeppermintPig, on 11/21/2007, -0/+1Apparently some parents are motivated enough to send their children to private school, despite paying their share towards public school funding. If the teachers were providing a quality education, certainly private schools would be almost non-existent.
Funding for teachers comes second to quality of education simply because the market, unhindered by government regulation, will naturally sort out your choices and quality of education will tend to dictate the salary a teacher is able to seek from their employer or the child's guardians.
- PeppermintPig, on 11/21/2007, -0/+1Apparently some parents are motivated enough to send their children to private school, despite paying their share towards public school funding. If the teachers were providing a quality education, certainly private schools would be almost non-existent.
- cwright213, on 11/21/2007, -9/+4what's your suggestion? heck send it to him. It's better than not funding education.
- winnch, on 11/21/2007, -17/+6Wow, Obama finally has an education plan. Edwards had one months ago. Marked as lame.
- Alpione, on 11/21/2007, -2/+15Both = Throw Money At It
Both = Worthless
How many times in the past have we just tossed money at the public school systems only to see it stay miserable. Why do we keep doing that? Time to stop bashing our collective head against the wall...
- Alpione, on 11/21/2007, -2/+15Both = Throw Money At It
- AndrewDB, on 01/10/2008, -12/+5Still waiting to see Obama's plan for Space Exploration.
- PleaseJustDie, on 11/21/2007, -5/+4Give money to nasa from the education system and close a tax loophole for the not-quite-chief executives.
- forgottenhope, on 11/21/2007, -2/+44We need to stop with the department of education already and the no child left behind that only end up leaving kids behind. The federal govrenment knows no better than the state government about what is involved in education.
This is something the states used to be in charge of until the federal government offered the states more of our own money.
The department of education is a bottomless pit of wasted tax payers dollars.
Just because someone doesnt like the department of education doesnt mean they are anti education. It means our money would be better managed by the state in which you live. Why does the federal government want to put out broad swiping requirements when each state is different. And each locality in each state is different.
We need to get the federal government off our tax dollars and back into our pockets, they are just waisting it anyway.- geddon, on 11/21/2007, -5/+2Education is a National Priority.
- deciblast, on 11/21/2007, -0/+1Then why do parents research where the best schools before purchasing a house? I would imagine all schools would be of equal performance. No... all the smarter and well to do kids live in nice neighborhoods, leaving the poor districts with all by themselves. No money will solve that. The biggest part of business school is learning form your peers. If you are in an impoverished area, where half the students are busy taking part in "the game", then how do you imagine to fix that?
- geddon, on 11/21/2007, -0/+1We do not deny American citizens a good education simply because they're poor. Any politician who would convince you otherwise is a monster.
- deciblast, on 11/21/2007, -0/+1Then why do parents research where the best schools before purchasing a house? I would imagine all schools would be of equal performance. No... all the smarter and well to do kids live in nice neighborhoods, leaving the poor districts with all by themselves. No money will solve that. The biggest part of business school is learning form your peers. If you are in an impoverished area, where half the students are busy taking part in "the game", then how do you imagine to fix that?
- passive, on 11/21/2007, -2/+4Ok, so theoretically speaking, what do you think will happen if we were to cede all responsibility for education to the states?
The likely outcome is that states would set vastly different policies, with vastly different results. It would set up a generation of educational inequality across America, divided on state lines. In 20 years, the state you went to school could play a huge part in what jobs were available to you.
So, other than the inequality issue, what is wrong with this outcome?
As a nation, the better educated would make more money, and their taxes would subsidize the living of the less well educated. Unless of course, you cede ALL governmental programs to the states, effectively dissolving the Republic. I understand this appeals to some people, but it doesn't get away from the core problem, which is that in a connected world, it is imperative that everyone get an equal start in life.
Now, I understand it can seem like a federal education policy is something so divorced from reality that it can't possibly work. But that's not how it has to be. Look at Obama's technology proposals, and how he suggests opening up government in ways that simply have not been done before.
The bottom line is that while there are plenty of reasons to believe this won't work, that doesn't mean it can't work. We can make it work. - SouthsideIrish, on 11/23/2007, -0/+1Oh, throw more money at it! Then get rid of the teachers unions and let the parents and school district hire and fire.
- geddon, on 11/21/2007, -5/+2Education is a National Priority.
- rupertmorris, on 11/21/2007, -19/+40WTF has NASA done for any of you lately?! Seriously, I want to know.
I guess my point is to invest in the future of your country via education has much farther reaching benefits than sending ***** into space. I'm all for sending ***** into space, but not at the cost of education.- jvolkman, on 11/21/2007, -0/+9 It's difficult to do much when budget cuts are being thrown at you. NASA had twice its current funding during the height of the Apollo program (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NASA_Budget ), AND education was better.
- captbbq, on 11/21/2007, -0/+6Thats not even adjusted for inflation...
- geddon, on 11/21/2007, -2/+6Interesting that people would sacrifice our Education in the name of Space Exploration when clearly "sending ***** into space" should be handled by the private sector until it becomes imperative for us to leave the planet. This same logic is applied to all forms of social spending which are viewed as outrageous taxation, when the problem is military spending PLAIN AND SIMPLE.
- j0ew00ds, on 11/21/2007, -0/+7there's plenty of science and tech advances as a result of NASA. I agree with geddon, the money has to come from the military directly.
- Humptydank, on 11/21/2007, -0/+2Hey, let's have a contest on how many practical tech advances, that have had an impact on ordinary citizens, have arisen from the space program vs. military spending.
Personally, I'm putting all my money on military.
- Humptydank, on 11/21/2007, -0/+2Hey, let's have a contest on how many practical tech advances, that have had an impact on ordinary citizens, have arisen from the space program vs. military spending.
- mattmanp, on 12/01/2007, -0/+0What did NASA ever do for you?
http://spaceplace.nasa.gov/en/kids/spinoffs2.shtml
This is a small list compared to everything that's been developed by them, but it's surprising how much technology developed by NASA and NASA contractors that spill over to our every day use and we never know it. Who knows, maybe there is a big war we can cancel and use all these funds instead?
- jvolkman, on 11/21/2007, -0/+9 It's difficult to do much when budget cuts are being thrown at you. NASA had twice its current funding during the height of the Apollo program (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NASA_Budget ), AND education was better.
- RandoTheKing, on 11/21/2007, -17/+918 billion? Where does he plan on getting this money? Last time I checked we need to pay our debts off and stop spending funny money. Obviously Barack isn't the answer to the falling dollar.
The department of education needs fixed, especially for college students. It's kind of retarded that one government agency considers you a dependent until you're 25 however the other claims you're an independent as soon as you turn 18.
RP08- jonms83, on 11/21/2007, -4/+5well by this time hopefully we'll be out of Iraq, that'll be saving us... oh.... trillions of dollars.
- RandoTheKing, on 11/21/2007, -2/+5Saving us trillions, but not paying back trillions.
Getting out of Iraq will slow down the amount we spend but we don't make any money leaving.- kaimana, on 11/21/2007, -4/+2You think Ron Paul is going to pay back all that money? With what? Granted, he won't be making the deficit any larger but he's not going to pay it back. And truthfully, what's the point? That is such a big hole and there's no solving that problem.
- RandoTheKing, on 11/21/2007, -2/+5Saving us trillions, but not paying back trillions.
- MrStylz, on 11/21/2007, -1/+1RP 08? isn't he the guy trying to get rid of the public education system?
- RandoTheKing, on 11/21/2007, -0/+1If you haven't been paying attention, the department of education either needs revamped or done away with.
- jonms83, on 11/21/2007, -4/+5well by this time hopefully we'll be out of Iraq, that'll be saving us... oh.... trillions of dollars.
- WorkingDead, on 11/21/2007, -0/+55Lets face it, the Department of Education ins a failure. Lets give control of schools back over to the states so it can be reasonably managed. There is no accountability at the federal level. These things need to be handled locally.
- cwright213, on 11/21/2007, -0/+2you know you may be right. That would be a good debate question. I'm not trying to to be sarcastic,but what do you believe the local government would do differently.
- deciblast, on 11/21/2007, -0/+0See California's Master Plan for Higher Education: http://www.ucop.edu/acadinit/mastplan/mp.htm
- Humptydank, on 11/21/2007, -0/+2Cool. Now do Louisiana.
And Alabama.
And Mississippi.
- Humptydank, on 11/21/2007, -0/+2Cool. Now do Louisiana.
- deciblast, on 11/21/2007, -0/+0See California's Master Plan for Higher Education: http://www.ucop.edu/acadinit/mastplan/mp.htm
- SouthsideIrish, on 11/23/2007, -0/+1I say give the control back to the local districts. The school district I send my son to almost had a strike a couple of weeks ago. Teachers are second highest paid in the state and they were under contract. They were crying about high medical insurance costs and lack of pay raises. Average teacher makes about 100,000 a year. Little crybabies got their money.
- cwright213, on 11/21/2007, -0/+2you know you may be right. That would be a good debate question. I'm not trying to to be sarcastic,but what do you believe the local government would do differently.
- Magnolit, on 11/21/2007, -11/+14b-b-b-b-bureaucracy !
- killakan, on 11/21/2007, -8/+9The early education plan will be paid for by :
delaying the NASA Constellation Program for five years - Take money from one underfunded department and give it to another. Good move. I have an idea, lets fund it out with a Congressional pay cut, ending the Congressional retirement fund, by stop paying for ex-congresscritters to have offices in Washington AFTER they are out of office, and by getting rid of some of the true PORK in the budget?
using purchase cards and the negotiating power of the government to reduce costs of standardized procurement - This sounds quite a bit like having the federal government pay for all schooling. This will cost more than $18 Billion.
auctioning surplus federal property - shouldn't this go to reducing the federal debt instead?
reducing the erroneous payments identified by the Government Accountability Office - How about eliminating the erroneous payments and using the money to pay down the federal debt?
and closing the CEO pay deductibility loophole - Go for it. This will happen about the same time CEOs stop making campaign contributions. - Mcwop, on 11/21/2007, -10/+26He could throw $50 billion at education, and not one thing will change except teacher salaries. Same crappy curriculum, badly designed school buildings, no ability to discipline kids, spending tons on sports that benefit only a few kids, etc.... etc.....
- passive, on 11/21/2007, -0/+2So there's lots of things wrong with the country's education system.
Now tell me WHY we can't fix it?- Mcwop, on 11/21/2007, -0/+1I wish I knew. I think that there is too much command and control over curriculum, which is stuck in the 1950's. Governmnet just cannot seem to adapt well. The Montessori model seems much better in some cases. There are many other models better suited to todays world.
- nastronomical, on 11/21/2007, -0/+1This is why!
http://youtube.com/watch?v=DkUjRGnFUe8
- passive, on 11/21/2007, -0/+2So there's lots of things wrong with the country's education system.
- jonms83, on 11/21/2007, -2/+17I just hope the extra money will somehow trickle down to pay teachers more for their efforts. They really do get paid very little in regards to how important their work is.
- cwright213, on 11/21/2007, -0/+1I believe some of the money will go to teachers. We "the people" have been saying this for quite a loooong time. Heck if teachers were paid 70,000 plus. I'd teach
- wendelgee2, on 11/21/2007, -0/+1And because of that, how many potentially talented teachers choose other professions?
- senatorpjt, on 11/21/2007, -0/+1I don't know where people keep getting this idea, average teacher salary is $50K/year ( http://www.aft.org/salary/ ), and they only work 180 days a year. I had already considered going into teaching because of the high pay in terms of hours worked, but I decided both that it was the wrong reason to go into it, and that I'd be bored ***** by teaching high-school level material.
Besides, I don't think that's the problem anyway. I know several people looking for teaching jobs that can't find one. There seems to be quite a surplus of people trying to enter the field.- Humptydank, on 11/21/2007, -1/+1I have a bunch of friends who are teachers, and you would benefit by having some too.
My friends make the salary you're talking about with a *Masters Degree* from the best teaching program in the country -- Teacher's College at Columbia. How many people with a Masters from Columbia are willingly making that kind of money to do something they love and they think really helps the world?
You're "180 days a year" is perhaps the most insulting part. You're better off measuring teacher time in terms of hours, and had you decided to go into the profession (and I think we all dodged a bullet with that one) you would not have survived a week. During the school year, they do not see their family and friends -- Up at 5:30, teaching all day, conferences and faculty meetings after school, grab a quick dinner, and then grading papers until you go to bed. The more ambitious and conscientious a teacher you are, the more after-school work there is to be done, and the more you are swamped. But from the sound of it, that doesn't sound like something you're burdened by.
If you're teaching high school, then students will ask you to do college recommendations. Again, if you're conscientious, these aren't short, there are many, and you have to address them and mail them yourself.
The summer vacation is necessary time. Teacher's wouldn't survive without it. Between the salary, the demands, and the attitudes of people like you, it's amazing they do at all.- blooboy, on 11/22/2007, -0/+1boo freakin' hoo. most teachers I had in school DID NOT put that much effort into their jobs. They weren't worth whatever they were paid.
It took my mom to teach me the stuff my teachers were too stupid or unwilling to teach. - Humptydank, on 11/22/2007, -0/+1@blooboy:
Well, a quick look over your history turns up your problems with "the illegals" and how they're taking over (one delivery order and head of lettuce at a time), and the assertion that global warming is a ploy by government to take control away from the people (we can control the weather?). I'm sure you offered up some real gems in school, and I'm surprised that the academic community didn't warm to you.
I'm going to give your Mom credit and assume that what she taught you is not what you choose to post here. Things like the Scientific Method, and how to solve problems in a way that respects the fact that even though someone may have done something illegal, and that's not right and we need to find a solution, it may have been to feed their children or get them out of poverty.
- blooboy, on 11/22/2007, -0/+1boo freakin' hoo. most teachers I had in school DID NOT put that much effort into their jobs. They weren't worth whatever they were paid.
- Humptydank, on 11/21/2007, -1/+1I have a bunch of friends who are teachers, and you would benefit by having some too.
- jayhawk, on 11/21/2007, -8/+21he's not just throwing money at schools and saying go; rather, he has something called a plan. has anyone criticizing it actually read it? here's a snippet from the article and a link to the "plan":
Obama's plan (http://my.barackobama.com/page/-/HQpress/112007%20 ... would spend $10 billion a year on programs for children up to 5 years old. It would expand Head Start and other preschool programs and increase the availability of child care to working families.
"For every dollar we invest in these programs, we get $10 back in reduced welfare rolls, fewer healthcare costs and less crime," Obama said.
------------
i spent years working with single mothers who are below poverty and the number 1 issue that kept them from keeping jobs was inconsistent or a lack of childcare. Obama is correct in that having better available childcare will help these young mothers to keep their jobs and that saves us all money in the long run.- jayhawk, on 11/21/2007, -1/+2working link, i hope: http://my.barackobama.com/page/-/HQpress/112007%20 ...
- RandoTheKing, on 11/21/2007, -6/+3We also shouldn't be spending billions of dollars just to help women who couldn't keep their legs closed when they knew they couldn't finacially support it.
- RandoTheKing, on 11/21/2007, -6/+510 billion on children under the age of 5? LOL
Preschool isn't the fix for the education system we currently have. What a waste.- wendelgee2, on 11/21/2007, -2/+3Actually, early childhood education has profound effects on academic performance later on. I suggest you do some research on this topic.
- Pssdoff, on 11/21/2007, -2/+2Because the federal government does such a better job at teaching young kids than the parents? Hey, what the hell, 10 billion dollars to everyone!
- wendelgee2, on 11/21/2007, -2/+3Actually, early childhood education has profound effects on academic performance later on. I suggest you do some research on this topic.
- dinostabOMG, on 11/21/2007, -2/+3A lot of the people making these comments are likely being paid to spread this FUD. Thanks for reintroducing some reason to this discussion.
- patosan, on 11/21/2007, -0/+5Obama's solution to our education system is essentially new programs, reform some existing programs (No Child Left Behind etc.) and more money. We already pay more money per student than any other country.
Reform the existing system and get it working well first. Before that we have no business even thinking about additional programs.
More programs and more money does NOT fix a fundamentally flawed system. We have over forty years of new programs and increasing funding as evidence. - geddon, on 11/21/2007, -1/+2Homemakers who raise their own children should be paid as full time workers for their contributions to our country.
- Syntaxis, on 11/21/2007, -1/+3Legalizing abortion would be a good start towards not having poor, young and single mothers in the first place.
- jayhawk, on 11/21/2007, -1/+2working link, i hope: http://my.barackobama.com/page/-/HQpress/112007%20 ...
- jonms83, on 11/21/2007, -2/+8Lets just hope the money will trickle down to the teachers. Considering how important their work is, they do get paid too little.
In addition, I hope this will raise the bar for teaching, allowing schools to be more picky about teachers, and have a higher quality of education.- cwright213, on 11/21/2007, -1/+0BINGO!!!!
- deciblast, on 11/21/2007, -0/+1Remove the bureaucracy and there will be plenty of money to increase teacher salaries.
- SouthsideIrish, on 11/23/2007, -0/+1They get paid more than enough where I live!
- RandoTheKing, on 11/21/2007, -10/+5bury
- Araxen, on 11/21/2007, -11/+13I'm a Obama backer but taking money from NASA? Ugh! NASA is fundamental to promoting science in this country. They need more money not less!
I might have to reconsider my choice of Obama.- cwright213, on 11/21/2007, -8/+1NASA is not the reason for Science. What has NASA done for you lately. I'm sure NASA is not going to go broke because of this.
- captbbq, on 11/21/2007, -1/+7NASAs budget is around 15 Billion, Obama wants 18 Billion for education, you do the math (Because he obviously can't)
- budoudoh, on 11/21/2007, -1/+0Which part of the plan did he say that he was going to completely defund NASA. Its this type of sensationalism that is not needed in political discourse.
- captbbq, on 11/21/2007, -1/+7NASAs budget is around 15 Billion, Obama wants 18 Billion for education, you do the math (Because he obviously can't)
- geddon, on 11/21/2007, -5/+3Do you expect the children will be bright enough to find their way into NASA if not for a solid educational foundation?
- JonForTheWin, on 11/21/2007, -1/+2Which isn't going to happen by making the self-sustaining self-interested bureaucrats.
- geddon, on 11/21/2007, -0/+2..and it certainly won't happen by cutting national funding for eduction. We need to learn -- before attempting to teach -- the lessons Open Source has taught us. Education should be Open as well, allowing everyone to see where their dollars are going, and to set the policies which guide our educational standards.
- JonForTheWin, on 11/21/2007, -1/+2Which isn't going to happen by making the self-sustaining self-interested bureaucrats.
- passive, on 11/21/2007, -0/+4While in general I agree, there is something to be said for addressing the fundamentals of education first, as it seems Obama is doing. The country is nearly $10 trillion dollars in debt, and while I would love to see NASA better funded, it may be at this time we have to pick and choose between the two. Unless we starting diverting the military budget.
- cwright213, on 11/21/2007, -8/+1NASA is not the reason for Science. What has NASA done for you lately. I'm sure NASA is not going to go broke because of this.
- oldhick, on 11/21/2007, -3/+7I love the "invest in the future" and blah blah blah... We spend as much money per child as nearly every country already. Unlike most other countries, we don't have educational choices, we don't have vouchers...
The solution isn't always to throw more money at the problem. And criticizing people with different ideas on education is pretty lame. Everyone agrees that educating our youth is important. No one is interested in watching people get any dumber. There are simply better approaches then simply "increase funding".- cwright213, on 11/21/2007, -3/+0I agree with you but lets hear your ideas. I have heard lots of good ideas on here.
- passive, on 11/21/2007, -0/+2Actually, if you read this thread, it seems there are quite a few people who think we should just let Americans get dumber (or at least SOME Americans).
Also, there is a difference between throwing money at a problem for money's sake (a common political tactic), and recognizing direct shortcomings in our current system and attempting to deal with them directly. Just because we are spending tons of money now doesn't mean we are spending it on the right things.
- daxsymbiont, on 11/21/2007, -11/+2America is too racist to vote Obama.
- wheresthevan, on 11/21/2007, -2/+1not the educated part...
- govsucks, on 11/21/2007, -2/+7You are so full of *****. I would crawl through a mine field of ***** to cast my vote for Thomas Sowell or Walter Williams. I wouldn't vote for Obama cause he's a socialist, not because he's black. People who say "America is too racist to vote Obama." are blithering idiots.
- abuelos84, on 11/21/2007, -2/+1You americans have a very weird way of interpreting the concept of "socialist"... Boogie-boogie-boo!
- govsucks, on 11/21/2007, -1/+1Socialist: Anyone who believes that society (the mob in charge at the time) can force individuals to make choices and remove liberty in any number of ways at will.
No, perhaps not the boogie man, but not someone who has freedom in mind either.Would you think of me as a nice guy if I told you what to eat, what to do in the privacy of your home, how to live "healthy", how to spend your retirement funds, how charitable you had to be and enforced those mandates at the point of a gun? Yeah, boogie-boogie-boo, thats how society ***** you.
- govsucks, on 11/21/2007, -1/+1Socialist: Anyone who believes that society (the mob in charge at the time) can force individuals to make choices and remove liberty in any number of ways at will.
- abuelos84, on 11/21/2007, -2/+1You americans have a very weird way of interpreting the concept of "socialist"... Boogie-boogie-boo!
- cwright213, on 11/21/2007, -1/+0I don't think it is. Lots of people have stuck their hands in the fire twice. Also, there's too much at stake. Everyone on here needs to take a look around. things aren't getting better. Hey people now that you don't have two hands, go ahead and stick your neck out there this time.
- Treoinmypocket, on 11/21/2007, -2/+11Cut spending to the war and NASA. OK. defund the war - I get it. I don't agree but I get it. NASA? why?
And how about cutting the massive amounts of spending on others things? Like all the pork barrel projects? All ANY of these guys do is SPEND $$ and when they talk about cutting they only cut the rate of increase, not actual spending. Makes me puke.
Now this was a gem: "Noting that Clinton had "fought on behalf of children for 35 years," campaign spokesman Phil Singer said that "Sen. Obama simply can't match that kind of leadership and experience.""
WOW. Clinton has demonstrated no actual leadership on behalf of children or anything else. I mean, by definition, doesn't leadership mean that you have convinced people you are right and they then therefore follow you and do what you propose? She has led nothing. She's failed at lots of things but LEADERSHIP? No. - daxsymbiont, on 11/21/2007, -11/+6Ron Paul is another proof the US is only capable to elect right wing extremists or delusional idiots. It's like the Clinton campaign (not his actual policies later), dancing Macarena, playing the sux. The policies of Paul are completely utopian, for example: NO TAXES + *minuscule* government, do you know what that means? Western movies, the sheriff is out of town, tough bullies rule, bye bye to *any* social public benefit whatsover, an age where the rule of gun and extremist individualism rule.
- deciblast, on 11/21/2007, -2/+3Ron Paul is one of the only candidates that would take a hard look in any situation and listen to experts to figure out what we need to do in a conservative manner. Sometimes radical ideas are necessary rather than more of the same thinking.
- JonForTheWin, on 11/21/2007, -0/+4Almost all of the "wild wild west" thing was propaganda spread in the east of the nation to prevent the factory workers from leaving for a better life with their families.
I doubt the rest of those on Digg would expect you to know that either.. - senatorpjt, on 11/21/2007, -0/+2I believe it was actually no -federal- taxes and miniscule -federal- government.
- amiches, on 11/21/2007, -13/+5RON PAUL RON PAUL RON PAUL
- KampfGherkin, on 11/21/2007, -12/+13Barack Obama is your business-as-usual candidate. Throwing more money at it is no solution to an obviously bigger problem (No Child Left Behind anyone), especially when the US government has to increase the federal credit limit to USD 9.85 trillion just so it can function well into the 2008 fiscal year without grinding to a halt.
It doesn't matter that "Obama suggested cutting spending on the Iraq war, delaying sending astronauts to the moon by five years, auctioning surplus federal property and closing a tax loophole for chief executives, among other things." To me that sounds more like scraping together chup change from the couch. Pulling out of Iraq completely would free up more cash, especially since the majority wants that, rather than picking up a dollar here and there.
Reading Obama's issues and stances, he's trying real hard to be everybody's man. Pretty much a Jack of all trades but master of none. This man is spreading himself too thinly. There are a few very important issues that demand your attention at this juncture as a candidate. Off the top of my head: 1) get a rock hard grip on out of control federal spending with the dollar on an ever increasing downward spiral. 2) Pull America's military might home (the empire and nation building IS NOT working in America's favour). Those two points pretty much mean reduce the size of federal government and completely realign foreign policy. Before you can even attempt at fixing America itself, that is what needs to be sorted out. Otherwise America = Rome.- lazyfisherman, on 11/21/2007, -7/+2Even if he sucks, he's better than Ghouliani and Billary.
- deciblast, on 11/21/2007, -1/+1That I can definitely agree to.
- deciblast, on 11/21/2007, -1/+1That I can definitely agree to.
- lazyfisherman, on 11/21/2007, -7/+2Even if he sucks, he's better than Ghouliani and Billary.
- josh4rim, on 11/21/2007, -3/+8It is not the governments job to raise us from cradle to grave! Every time the government gets their hands on any program it fails miserably. The government needs to do what they were called to do in the constitution, thats IT!
- govsucks, on 11/21/2007, -1/+2But how we will pay for all our wonderful socialist ideas that nobody will VOLUNTARILY give us money for? :)
- pintomp3, on 11/21/2007, -2/+3that's the mentality that has helped put the US way down on education compared to the rest of the world. after sputnik, we realized that we need to invest in this country's future by educating our children. that helped make the US a leader in science and engineering. we are losing that edge because we are losing that vision.
- senatorpjt, on 11/21/2007, -0/+5Also, at the time, scientists and engineers were respected, now they're seen as "intellectual elitists".
- passive, on 11/21/2007, -2/+1Nonsense. S-CHIP is a resounding success. Medicare has administrative overhead costs of something like 3%, which is much lower than any comparable private endeavor. Also, I believe we got rid of Polio.
However, your first sentence is right on. It is not the governments job to raise us. That's what we have parents for. But the government is a very valuable tool in distributing resources to parents to help them in this task.
- wheresthevan, on 11/21/2007, -4/+5a future with a better educated nation means:
A less violent nation filled with young adults who actually have choices in life coming out of high school...
America can once again be a melting pot of people with ideas who care, innovate, and inspire the rest of the world instead of the fear filled, gun toting, overweight, divided shopping mall it is looked as at today...
Less likely the future generation will have to regret putting a blithering idiot in the White House... twice
Any candidate who puts that at the forefront of his/her campaign has seriously got to be considered... my 2 cents...- thcobbs, on 11/21/2007, -2/+2/me sniff
It really is sad to see what our education system turns out these days. - passive, on 11/21/2007, -0/+3It's a shame I had to read this far down the page to get to your comment. Nicely said!
- thcobbs, on 11/21/2007, -2/+2/me sniff
- lazyfisherman, on 11/21/2007, -2/+7Increase teacher pay and incentives... decrease school administrator pay, power and ability to insulate themselves from teachers, parents and children through layers of bureaucracy. Throwing more money at this problem won't solve anything if it's not being spent wisely in the first place.
- SteveTheSultan, on 11/21/2007, -1/+0Mirror: http://209.208.100.249/index.aspx?UL=http://digg.c ...
- BigDane, on 11/21/2007, -8/+3He's got my vote THATS RIGHT I VOTE YOU HIPPIES
- govsucks, on 11/21/2007, -4/+7WOW, throw more money at government failure...how original and different than all the other people before him.
- dagnabbit, on 11/21/2007, -3/+2Says someone who obviously hasn't bothered to read the actual plan.
- nastronomical, on 11/21/2007, -1/+4Says someone who doesnt know ***** about education failure....oh wait arent you a product of such a failure....silly libs...LOL.
- nastronomical, on 11/21/2007, -4/+1Says someone who doesnt know ***** about education failure....oh wait arent you a product of such a failure....silly libs...LOL.
- dagnabbit, on 11/21/2007, -3/+2Says someone who obviously hasn't bothered to read the actual plan.
- thcobbs, on 11/21/2007, -1/+10Spending more money is not the answer. I live in a state where .50 of every tax dollar goes to Education. What did it get us? A massively bloated administrative wing and teacher asking students to bring paper towels because class-supply money is so tight.
- cwright213, on 11/21/2007, -0/+2Sounds like corruption in your state. go ahead and write your president.
- slantyeyed, on 11/21/2007, -0/+5The skinny on how he intends to fun his education plan.
"To pay for his proposals, Obama suggested cutting spending on the Iraq war, delaying sending astronauts to the moon by five years, auctioning surplus federal property and closing a tax loophole for chief executives, among other things." - wd52, on 11/21/2007, -9/+7.
Young, energetic, smart, honest, hard-working: Barack Obama.
Help get America back.
.- JonForTheWin, on 11/21/2007, -1/+3And his solution for us to have a sound monetary policy is what?
- ingenium21, on 11/21/2007, -1/+1As opposed to 9/11 giuliani who just wants to fund homeland security with all our taxes?
At least Obama sounds like he's trying, and it sounds like he has a brain trust.
- ingenium21, on 11/21/2007, -1/+1As opposed to 9/11 giuliani who just wants to fund homeland security with all our taxes?
- JonForTheWin, on 11/21/2007, -1/+3And his solution for us to have a sound monetary policy is what?
- captbbq, on 11/21/2007, -2/+8Just on the heels of the top ten digg indicating "most people thin NASA budget is near 25% of Federal budget" The NASA budget is actually about 0.6 percent of that.... or around 12-16 Billion... LESS than Obamas' proposed increase for education.
Its obvious he is just another politician playing off peoples' ignorance. My respect for him has gone down.- cwright213, on 11/21/2007, -3/+1And still cutting NASA's budget is bad how?
- captbbq, on 11/21/2007, -2/+2well, you wouldn't happen to be a fan of environmental science would you? NASA plays a ***** huge role in that. Otherwise, it means that my great grandchildren might be able to get away from retarded ***** like your great grandchildren.
- dagnabbit, on 11/21/2007, -2/+2He didn't say all of his budget increase for education will come from NASA's budget. Just a portion of it.
- cwright213, on 11/21/2007, -3/+1And still cutting NASA's budget is bad how?
- tman84, on 11/21/2007, -8/+4That's right Barack, let the federal government handle everything. Just tax us at 50% and you take control over everything in our lives, That's what the socialists want isnt it?
- engrishGamer, on 11/21/2007, -2/+2Dumbass, he's not increasing school funding while letting everything else remain unchanged. He suggested decreasing war funding and NASA funding to compensate. Did you even read the article?
- tman84, on 11/21/2007, -2/+2Yes I read the article, he's propsing more federal control. The rest is symantics
- passive, on 11/21/2007, -2/+1I'm sorry you are so terrified of socialists that you insist on seeing them everywhere. Where you molested by a socialist as a child or something? (sorry about that if you were, but molesting children isn't actually part of the socialist manifesto, despite what many people would have you believe)
- ingenium21, on 11/21/2007, -0/+1OH KNOW! RUN FOR YOUR LIVES! ITS THE SOCIALISTS! GOD FORBID EVERYONE HAVE EQUALITY! EVERYONE HAS A FAIR CHANCE AT A GOOD LIFE! GOD FORBID EVERYONE HAVE HEALTHCARE, EDUCATION, A ROOF OVER THEIR HEADS, THOSE EVIL SOCIALISTS ARE TRYING TO DESTROY OUR PLANET WITH THEIR EVIL SOLIDARITY!
- engrishGamer, on 11/21/2007, -2/+2Dumbass, he's not increasing school funding while letting everything else remain unchanged. He suggested decreasing war funding and NASA funding to compensate. Did you even read the article?
- martoq, on 11/21/2007, -0/+2One of the biggest problems in school in my opinion isn't under-qualified teachers, outdated text books, or whatever other excuse you want to throw out there. Its the lack of parental supervision. If a parent isn't invested in their child's education then neither is the child! You want to get serious about this, how about for starters directly linking a persons welfare to their child's grades and attendance. See how quickly parents start paying attention to their children's education. Throw in disciplinary problems as well. I know several teachers who have called parents only to have the parent yell at the teacher and say don't bother calling here...I DON'T CARE!
- KatrinaMarie, on 02/17/2008, -0/+0I agree. Parents really need to be a part of their children's educations. Teachers can try as hard as they want while the students are at school, but if the parents don't respect and value the education their children are having, the children are going to realize that and, in turn, they won't care about their schoolwork in the least. Believe me, I see it every day in my school. You can pick out the students that are getting the parental support and you can pick out those kids that aren't.
- usgovterrorists, on 11/21/2007, -7/+2If public schools were working, they wouldn't be afraid of vouchers.
United States Government are terrorists, war criminals, and horrific liars.
9-11 was an inside job! What happened to building 7?
Depleted uranium is a weapon of mass destruction!
Play Wall Street like a PONZI SCHEME!- TokenWhiteGuy, on 11/30/2007, -0/+1I hope you get hit by a bus you ***** ignorant *****.
- freestatelover, on 11/21/2007, -2/+9John Stossel gave a report on 20/20 that proved education spending did not equal education results. Obama seems to be whistling Dixie with his head up his ass.
- ingenium21, on 11/21/2007, -1/+1First of all, John Stossel is a douchebag. Second of all, he provides no real answers to his "reports", and for every report that says education spending does not equal education results you have other articles that say the complete opposite.
- mcfriendly, on 11/21/2007, -0/+3I love the people who think this solution is so simple as to punish teachers/schools that have student with poor grades by reducing their salary or funding. But why stop there? Why not do the same for policeman with high crimes rates in their neighborhoods, firemen who live in communities with arsons, or even dentists with patients who have too many cavities? This not only sounds stupid - it is stupid. The roots of all these problems belong to society as a whole and we all need to provide our best possible support to eradicate the causes.
- omegaredIX, on 11/21/2007, -0/+5You can dump all the money into education you want. Billions upon billions go right ahead but if the parents are not good role models for their children and show zero interest in schooling then the billions will be wasted. My sisters and brother are homeschooling at the moment and their math and reading skills are far past the standards for highschool students set here in Arizona, they are only 10,11, and 13. The money does not matter if the parents do not give a ***** end of story.
- spamcrusher, on 11/21/2007, -1/+6The best way is to break up the teacher's union. I remember teachers in high school who were absolutely worthless. I had a teacher that did not lecture a single time in a whole year! All she did was hand out a worksheet at the beginning of class, we would all cheat off each other and be done in ten minutes. The rest of the hour was spent farting around then we graded the worksheet and that was our grade. I agree teachers overall could use a raise, but not all teachers deserve a raise. It should be performance based.
The teachers will say performance based raises are not fair because some kids do not want to learn. True. However, nobody is demanding perfection. On an average, the students should perform well.
I can also remember some awesome teachers I had in high school, and I think of how unfair it is that those awesome teachers earned the same raise and same pay every year as that worthless piece of ***** who never once got up to lecture us. Under Obama's plan, worthless piece of ***** will make more money, and the good teacher will figure out she can become a worthless piece of ***** and still get compensated the exact same. - jfitz369, on 11/21/2007, -0/+3They should take that money and pay students to go to school. The better the grades the more money. Sounds crazy but it would probably work. And kids + $$$ = awesome consumers.
- THE4IRON, on 11/21/2007, -1/+4No child law is a joke.
Public education anymore is a glorified babysitting service.
Yes, deadbeat parents are largely at fault. - shauncorleone, on 11/21/2007, -0/+3It would be refreshing to see a candidate with a comprehensive program to GRADUALLY dissolve public education and give tax breaks to families for education (note: NOT vouchers), so that everyone could afford to send their kids to a private school of their choice. Just like everything else in the private sector, competition breeds increased quality of product. In some states, it has been estimated that it costs a public school up to $7000 per semester to educate one child, yet tuition to decent private schools in the same area run around $4500. Unfortunately, the public education is the largest elephant in the room of repeatedly failing government programs. I'm amazed at those who support throwing more money at public education yet ritualistically complain about the federal government's inability to run anything.
This is one of our nation's biggest problems, and giving the government more shovel money is only going to produce one result for the public education hole they've dug.- ingenium21, on 11/21/2007, -1/+2The Private Sector sucks just as bad as the public education programs. The only reason why private schools have so much better rates is because they are small. If suddenly everyone can send their students to privatte schools, guess what? private schools get crowded, other private schools close down, and we go back to students not being educated. I'm also not down with my child learning Religion. And in texas, I would be damn near impossible to find a private school that doesn't have a religious inclination.
- nastronomical, on 11/21/2007, -0/+3Want to know why Education doesnt need more money, instead it needs reform?
Go here
http://youtube.com/watch?v=DkUjRGnFUe8- ingenium21, on 11/21/2007, -0/+1And how do you get reform?
:worlds smallest violin:
- ingenium21, on 11/21/2007, -0/+1And how do you get reform?
- JonForTheWin, on 11/21/2007, -3/+5Schools should be county and state controlled, NOT federalized. We should be going in the opposite direction. ***** obama's plan.
- shakln0tstlrred, on 11/21/2007, -0/+2"To pay for his proposals, Obama suggested cutting spending on the Iraq war, delaying sending astronauts to the moon by five years, auctioning surplus federal property and closing a tax loophole for chief executives, among other things." I just want to know what "other things" are.
-
Show 51 - 61 of 61 discussions
Digg is coming to a city (and computer) near you! Check out all the details on our 
© Digg Inc. 2008 —
Content posted by
