The decision needs to remain the parents'. It is not the place of the government
to decide how infants and toddlers should be raised. Try reading works sited at
our org, or visit the CATO institute... publications by Darcy Olsen, for
starters. Please help preserve parents' freedoms and rights! Thank you!
We already have poverty and criminal activity from weak education. Here's some
of my ieas for simpifying education:1. Eliminate everything
associated with standardized testing. As a thirty year retired teacher I have
asked hundreds of teachers, parents, administrators, and some state officials
about this. No one acknowledges improvement in learning. The main reason is
making students accountable. (?).2. For the special need students,
have three leveled classes ranging from mild to severe. Districts can contract
or share an expert to handle the placement.3. School becomes
voluntary at a determined age. Too much time, money, and effort spent on
students not wanting to be there and learning little to nothing. Learning
students are hindered. My opinion, most young people will come.4.
With standardized testing eliminated, the state and feds won't be setting
teaching objectives. Teachers will measure student progress. Districts will
depend on competing textbook companies to create curriculum. Students will be
responsible for learning rather than receiving extra funding for special made
curriculum to pass a state test.Best thing for student education is
learning character and honesty. Like domino, things will fall in place.
@Worf- my assertion is that it is in the best interest of everyone to ensure
that every child has a quality education. I don't care if it's done privately
or through public schools. A lack of education creates poverty and criminal
activity. I'm interested in reading your solution to simplify and reduce the
expense of education.
I'm sure there's something in this about increasing the number of teachers,
We can't even pay for the schools we've got, how in the world are we going to
pay for full day kgarten?
I love the dual inccome slam. so we should have our wives at home or we should
stay at home and have a low income and maybe be on food stamps or other aid like
church aid. this is a very narrow minded way of thinking. The PTA. is already
just for stay at home moms anyway. they meet at times like 3:00 P.M. or worse in
the morning. some of us want to make enough to pay for our kids colledge which
by the time my 6 year old gets there could be 60,000 a year.
In a free country--the state will take and micro manage our children. They will
be taught! If Thomas Edison was a child today, he'd qualify for benefits and
We don't live in an ideal world. So turn our children over to the state? Look at
the succeess of Headstart and the billions of dollars already spent for
education. Billions on standardized testing,--and for what? It did'nt work,
with only twenty five percent of graduating seniors ready to handle college. How
many did'nt graduate? How long do we stand behind a horse and get kicked,
before we learn to stand or do somewhere else?There are some success
stories, but the rest is a disaster. Education does not need to be expensive and
can be simpified.
HB 111 does not keep the status quo. It changes the program to this:At risk children, those who score the lowest on entrance tests, would have the
option of going to the morning session of kindergarten and then going to the
afternoon session of kindergarten. Thus getting the same lessons twice in one
day. I foresee a group of children who are bored in the afternoon
session and will end up falling further behind, if this bill passes. Please let
the local districts and teachers decide what is best for their at-risk
Why must there be a one size fits all approach? Why not allow local schools and
school boards the freedom to decide how to best meet the needs of their
students? Sara Krebs, the literacy specialist in the above story, seems to have
a firmer grasp on how to meet the needs of the kids than some of the politicians
In an ideal world children would be better served at home at this age. The
problem is we don't live in an ideal world. At my sons school they offer one
section of extended day kindergarten. It is very much needed. There are at
least 15-20 children every year that arrive at the school that know NOTHING.
They don't know any letters, any sounds, colors, or even how to write their
name. Should they have learned this at home, YES! But they aren't
so what should be done? If we (the public) fail to teach them to read well,
then we are creating tomorrows criminals, and perpetual participant in well
fare. So it is vital that these kids be given an opportunity to succeed. Poor
parenting has dealt them a poor hand.
@procuradorfiscal: Do you have data for your statement that no significant
learning occurs beyond an hour or two of school in kids this young? I'd like to
read it. Both of my kids went to all-day kindergarten, and I can guarantee you
it was not daycare. The teacher taught the kids from the first bell to the
last, and most kids were well above grade level in reading. This is after she
started with some kids who didn't even know their ABCs or counting to 10 yet.
Show me the data!
This poorly concealed subsidy of dual-income parents' lifestyle choices SHOULD
go away.No significant learning occurs beyond an hour or two of
school in kids this young, anyway. After that, it's just state-funded day
care.Dual-income Utah County and East Bench liberals should have to
pay for their own nannies, rather than handing the bill over to the state.
I was lucky enough to sit next to battle-axe Ruzicka today. My face is still
shiny from the reflected glory.
Yes! Let's send these kids away from home and into schools. What a great idea.
Let's have another bill for tax payers. No wonder our country is plastered with