Personal Letters from a College-Aged Hillary Clinton

[conyat]

<p>

I posted a link to an extensive series of articles in the Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel, which explains how it works and how it is working in that city–the only large-scale effort to use vouchers in a major city to date, as far as I know.

</p>

<p>Hasn’t done much academically for the kids, unfortunately.</p>

<p><a href=“http://www.nsba.org/site/page.asp?TRACKID=&DID=32345&CID=1316[/url]”>http://www.nsba.org/site/page.asp?TRACKID=&DID=32345&CID=1316&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;

<p>

Milwaukee’s voucher program is the nation’s oldest, created by the Wisconsin Legislature in 1990. It enrolls approximately 17,410 students, with vouchers worth up to $6,501 per student in the 2006-07 school year. The program is expected to cost taxpayers about $110 million this school year, with nearly half that amount paid by withholding state aid to Milwaukee’s Public Schools and the rest coming from the state’s general fund. The state-mandated academic evaluation of the program ended in the mid 1990s after research showed no major differences academically between public and voucher students.

</p>

[conyat]

<p><a href=“http://www.jsonline.com/story/index.aspx?id=352401[/url]”>http://www.jsonline.com/story/index.aspx?id=352401&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;

<p>

Although the voucher program is based on the premise of offering parents more school choices, parents rarely shop around for a school, often have very little information available to them on what a school is like and often make choices not based on educational quality.</p>

<p>The public has had little information available about the voucher schools because as private schools, they are often exactly that - very private. They are required to disclose little information and are not required to take part in the state’s standardized testing program.

</p>

<p><a href=“http://www.jsonline.com/story/index.aspx?id=169874[/url]”>http://www.jsonline.com/story/index.aspx?id=169874&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;

<p>When things went wrong at one school, there was little the state could do about it:</p>

<p>

Despite [allegations of staff not being paid, the school being evicted from a building, and reports of drug activity in the school], state Department of Public Instruction officials said they can’t close a choice school like Alex’s as long as it has a city occupancy permit and submits regular financial audits.

</p>

<p>Wisconsin does not require criminal background checks on voucher school employees and 10% of the schools are said to have “serious problems”.</p>

<p><a href=“http://www.jsonline.com/story/index.aspx?id=208098[/url]”>http://www.jsonline.com/story/index.aspx?id=208098&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;

<p>A few of the worst schools have been shut down. In one of these instances, a school shut down for cashing over $300,000 in checks for students who never attended, hundreds of students were displaced when the school was closed in mid-year.</p>

<hr>

<p>It’s interesting to me that much of the money for this program comes from the state general fund. You’d expect a voucher program would be able to support itself from the savings to the public school budget. Apparently this program is too costly for that.</p>

<p>This suggests that on a large scale, significant tax increases would be needed to support school vouchers. (In Milwaukee they’re already talking about increasing property taxes to fund an expansion of the vouchers). </p>

<p>I think this is another case of education policy being set on the basis of what’s popular with the voters rather than outcomes for children.</p>

[afruff23]

<p>@post #200</p>

<p>I don’t know much about the whole pre-k issue, but I’d trust you not to make any sweeping generalizations.</p>

<p>@post 201-202</p>

<p>That is why Ron Paul sponsored HR 1057 <a href=“http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=h110-1057[/url]”>Education Improvement Tax Cut Act (2007; 110th Congress H.R. 1057) - GovTrack.us;

<p>If you didn’t read the link I previously posted (post 193), let me summarize his plan.</p>

<p>He wants to give tax credits to people with students in K-12 schools. Instead of the money going directly to the schools, they go to the parents.</p>

[hereshoping]

<p>“Rather heartless” is an ad hominem–who knew? </p>

[tommybill]

<p>From post 200…Let me get this straight:</p>

<p>K-12 education: parents able to choose public or private, and not pay anything out of pocket either way. Republicans: Strongly support.</p>

<p>pre-K: parents able to choose public or private and not pay anything out of pocket either way. Parents have an additional option to decline. Republicans: Strongly oppose.</p>

<p>Something very magical must happen to a child around age 5 that parental choice and government funding stop being bad and start being good.</p>

<p>Excelent…thank you</p>

[afruff23]

<p>Can somebody back up this generalization about Republicans and pre-k please? I’ve never heard of it. I personally think pre-k is a waste of time and is another name for daycare.</p>

[conyat]

<p>afruff, you’re taking the post too literally. It was meant to be satirical. It was a pretty good representation of the position of one poster in the thread, though.</p>

<p>

I personally think pre-k is a waste of time and is another name for daycare.

</p>

<p>The issue is that a lot of children go to kindergarten unprepared. </p>

<p>They don’t know their colors or their shapes, basic body parts like the nose and the chin, and haven’t had much exposure to patterned language (rhyme, mainly). Shape recognition and exposure to patterned language are pretty essential to teaching a child to read. </p>

<p>Pre-K is designed to get these children up to speed as well as to familiarize them with the expectations of being in a group/classroom (in seat behavior, turn-taking, standing in line, etc.), and to get the kids interested and motivated about school.</p>

<p>Back in the day, that was what kindergarten was for. But now kindergarten is a full-day program with academic expectations. Obviously kids can acquire the skills in other settings, but all of them don’t. Kindergarten teachers will tell you that there’s a huge difference in the kids who come prepared and the kids who don’t. Some kids start out behind and simply never catch up. </p>

<p>Research has shown that kids who went to Head Start when compared to their classmates in 3rd or 4th grade are less likely to have been held back a grade and less likely to be in Special Education.</p>

[afruff23]

<p>That’s where parental responsibility comes in. I’m sick and tired of people thinking that it’s the government’s job to do everything for you.</p>

<p>If you’re parents didn’t teach you the difference between red and blue and squares and circles, then I don’t think you’ll end up doing well in school either way.</p>

<p>On a tangent, if you want to teach creationism to your kids, then go ahead, but don’t expect the school to do it. Long ago, parents had the responsibility for raising their child, but now we trust that the government will do it for us. Well, they can’t.</p>

<p>I think that those parents who bring in their children with absolutely no knowledge should be told that their child should be taught at home the very basics while going to kindergarten. If you allow for people to abuse the system, then they will. Your five senses are things which should have been taught to you by your parents in the five years before kindergarten.</p>

<p>Of course, private pre-k is fine, since people are just wasting their own money.</p>

<p>This reminds me of an article where a black researcher said that black kids do bad in rich prep schools because their parents don’t get involved. The parents just expect their kids to do well in school with no motivation from their parents. Guess what the various Black organizations and parents said? You’re racist.</p>

<p>My point in a single sentence: Parents should live up to the responsibilities of raising their child rather than letting the government do so.</p>

[tommybill]

<p>From post 208…“My point in a single sentence: Parents should live up to the responsibilities of raising their child…”</p>

<p>What do you suggest if the parents don’t live up to their responsibilities?</p>

[1sokkermom]

<p><a href=“http://www.nytimes.com/2007/08/13/us/politics/13donate.html?ei=5090&en=29ca444b7cc5e577&ex=1344657600&partner=rssuserland&emc=rss&pagewanted=print[/url]”>http://www.nytimes.com/2007/08/13/us/politics/13donate.html?ei=5090&en=29ca444b7cc5e577&ex=1344657600&partner=rssuserland&emc=rss&pagewanted=print&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;

<p>“While some questionable contributions are not unusual in big-money contests, a review of the first-quarter results reveals that in Mrs. Clinton’s case, they potentially had the effect of clinching her title as the all-around fund-raising leader. The Clinton campaign scoffed at any suggestion that it could have gamed the system to come out ahead (there is no evidence that it did), pointing out that there was no way to know much money was needed to surpass Mr. Obama in the closing days of the quarter.”</p>

<p>Gaming the system?? Say it ain’t so! :rolleyes:</p>

[mythmom]

<p>I am a professional educator who took leaves of absence when my children were babies and toddlers because I held tht raising my children was my central responsibility as well as my chief pleasure. As it happens, I taught both my children to read well before any school would. However, I sent each child to pre-school and feel that it was a significant part of their education. In fact, I feel that I sacrificed some of my time with them to benefit them in a pre-school environment. I don’t think pre-school or Head Starts programs abdicate parental responsibity in any way.</p>

[afruff23]

<p>@tommybill</p>

<p>Nothing. There’s nothing the government can do to make parents want their children to succeed. Why do you think many poor Asian kids come to America and become successful whereas many Black kids have been in America for generations and don’t surpass their poor Asian peers on average?</p>

<p>It’s a sad fact of life but you can’t choose your parents. Also, the government can’t control parents. The parents have to want it for their own children if they are to succeed.</p>

<p>@mythmom</p>

<p>That’s great, but pre-K did nothing for them that you already didn’t do. If you had another child now, raised them with the same love as you did your other kids, and sent him/her straight to kindergarten, then he/she would turn out the same.</p>

<p>I and many of my friends skipped pre-k (one even skipped kindergarten) but I found no correlation between going to pre-k and being smart. It all mattered on how much their parents cared. My good friend who went to pre-k isn’t exactly bright and he has parents that take little interest in his education.</p>

[tommybill]

<p>@ afruff23 What about orphans what do we do about them?</p>

[afruff23]

<p>@tommybill</p>

<p>Orphans barely have adequate food and supplies as it is. I think you should focus more on those things. </p>

<p>Of course, there are 2 cases possible: get a set of loving foster parents eventually or be one of the rare self-motivated people.</p>

<p>There are self-motivated people. These are the kids with alcoholic parents in an inner-city school who end up very successful. There’s no way to discourage or encourage these types of kids with their environment; they just happen. But these cases are extremely rare.</p>

[conyat]

<p>Don’t you think it’s kind of arbitrary to single out pre-K as the needless year? Why not do away with kindergarten too, and put that back on the parents?
And 12th grade? Why not just say that if a child isn’t ready for 1st grade or for college after 11th, it’s the parents’ responsibility? </p>

<p>You think of K-12 as normal because it’s what you’re used to in your lifetime, but it’s entirely arbitary. It’s by no means a geographic or temporal constant. 40 years ago, a elementary/secondary school career in many US states was 1st - 11th.</p>

<p>We’re pushing elementary and secondary education wider and wider because the skills needed for the workforce are increasingly technical. We offer pre-K because it meets society’s needs, plain and simple.</p>

<p>The fact is, we’re going to spend the money one way or the other. If we don’t spend the money on programs like Head Start, we’ll spend 7 times as much on special education, imprisonment, etc. I consider any program that saves 7 times what it costs a good value.</p>

[tommybill]

<p>From post 214……… “There’s no way to discourage or encourage these types of kids with their environment; they just happen.”</p>

<p>That is so dead wrong I won’t comment other that to say I was once a Boy Scouts camp counselor and I saw for myself what can be done to improve kids lives. You want to tell me everything the Boy Scouts have done in America’s cities has been a lie and fake?</p>

[afruff23]

<p>@tommybill
Heh, sorry for bumping this old thread again.</p>

<p>You completely misquoted me. I said that “there’s no way to discourage or encourage [self-motivated] kids with their environment; they just happen.”</p>

[thisoldman]

<p>I am not going to read this thread and I didn’t read HRC letters. From the Thread’s title, they are personal, they are letters, and they are from a college-age person.</p>