Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Your assertion is that the government's Head Start defrauded the poor and minorities? And in the same breath you advocate for government-run public schools?
Take a few steps back and examine the corner into which you've backed yourself.
No, that might be your assertion, but you have completely invented that statement. I said that Head Start does not use certified, college-educated early childhood specialists. Have you any experience with Head Start? Have you seen the ads they run for director's positions? They do not hold teacher's licenses and while college is desirable for the teachers, it is not necessary. Head Start is also a half-day program, unlike most public school pre-school classes.
Fraud would exist if the government represented Head Start for something other than it is, which is a program to mitigate the conditions in which poor children live. No one in government has claimed anything more than that.
Do you have any experience with poor people? Surely you know that they are individuals like everyone else. They may be uneducated, but they are not generally stupid.
What schools do you advocate for the poorest of the poor? Some choose none. Do you?
I think you see corners where there are none.
Now, can you tell me where 75% of the children are above average? How did that happen and can it be replicated?
except that I've asked you to flesh out your argument and support it, which after about 7 times back and forth you ignore each time, mostly b/c at this point I think you can't.
I've suggested two solutions that work. Both have been proven to work:
1) Selective admissions to K-12 schools, Ã la our post-secondary education system which is the best in the world. Students are admitted to schools (or at least classes) with those of similar ability and achievement.
2) Dollar for dollar vouchers (same amount as home school district spends per pupil per year) so students and their families can opt for religious order (e.g., Jesuits, etc.) parochial schools, which are the best at educating K-12 regardless of socioeconomic level.
Last edited by InformedConsent; 03-15-2018 at 02:10 AM..
... but if every single student who applied was accepted, then they wouldn't be selective enrollment schools would they?
Think about how the US post-secondary system works. There's the Ivy League, all the way down the scale to community colleges that are just essentially an extension of high school, and everything in between. Students are sorted according to their ability/achievement into the various schools. The same system can and should be used in K-12.
How many tuition donors do you think each church has? Are there enough to donate tuition to every single family throughout the U.S who cannot afford it otherwise?
I think not...
There aren't enough parochial schools for the kids of every single family who wants them to attend such a school.
No, that might be your assertion, but you have completely invented that statement. I said that Head Start does not use certified, college-educated early childhood specialists.
What did Head Start spend its government funding on, instead?
Scholarships, and I know for a fact that every Catholic Church I've been to sponsors a tuition donor program. Donors can pay for a month, several months, a semester, or even a full school year for a qualified student with proof of financial need.
This post is willfully obtuse.
IC, you know damned good and well that scholarships and donors are few and far between and that only a minuscule number of children qualify for that help.
I only heard excerpts of the interview on NPR and they were edited to make her appear in the worst possible light (it is what NPR does). However what I heard, the questions they asked her were stupid and th arguments were stupid. Her answers were evasive and not well thought out. She stumbled and said things that made no sense, where there was a perfectly sensible answer (often "that is a really stupid question and here's why . . . ")
I do not think anyone can justifiably judge whether she is intelligent or a "moron" based on this little bit of information, nor what her goals or secret agenda might be. People love to make things up with no real knowledge and then it becomes echo chamber reality. The fact that you happen to be one of the hundreds of thousands of people who once lived or currently live in grand rapids, do not make you an expert on Mrs. Devos, her motives or her intelligence. Even having met her once, I cannot make any rational assessment of whether she is smart or dumb or what her secret unspoken motives or agenda might be.
She certainly is not a polished politician or lawyer and does not do well thinking on her feet. Lots of people who are brilliant are not good at that, or they are just poor communicators (about 9%5 of engineers for example). Have you ever heard Barbra Boxer speak without a teleprompter? It is not possible she could be as stupid as she sounds. I use her as an example simply because she is probably the worst and stupidest sounding speaker I have heard when not prompted or using prepared comments or responses. There are lots and lots of other examples of people who sound stupid when they speak impromptu, but they are actually smart people.
It is amusing that people try to take the incredibly complex issues involved in education and simply all of the problems down to a single issue or two almost always based on generalizations and/or averages that tell you nothing.
Listen to the whole interview. It was NOT edited to "make her appear in the worst possible light." That is certainly not what NPR does.
IC, you know damned good and well that scholarships and donors are few and far between and that only a minuscule number of children qualify for that help.
Be honest.
I am being honest. Yes, few children qualify for the scholarship or tuition donor program because few have the financial need.
Why do you cut out major portions of posts and ignore the relevant questions which debase your own arguments?
Because it was uninformed gibberish. When you can document that Head Start only hires unqualified applicants to be teachers and spends its government funding on other things, instead, we can look at the rest from there.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
