Tuesday, February 15, 2011

Obamas Budget

Obama had made a statement yesterday concerning all of U.S. He really is a numbskull! To tell us, quote "“Even as we cut out things that we can afford to do without, we have a responsibility to invest in those areas that will have the biggest impact in our future. And that’s especially true when it comes to education.” Always education.

I am not against a good education by any means, but when our systems are putting out uneducated, and basically just average children it tells me that more money in the education system is not what we need. There is something to be said for the Amish educating their children in a one room school house and only up to the 8th grade. I have seen for a fact the children can mathematically and logistically out do our children in every day thinking.

So, I had to ask myself again what is the real reason behind the 'more education' money. Then it came to me, the unions. It is one of the strongest unions in the U.S. hence therefore, the need for more money. There is so much waste in the education system I cringe. We have principals, assistant to the principal and an assistant to the assistant, seem to be a slight overkill??

Moving on to some more of his dumb-witted thoughts about a budget. He is insisting on building railways in U.S.,why we all ask would you even consider this as an option. There are very few states that want this due to the failure rate they know will happen. The idea is of course ridiculous, we could travel faster in a car than the railway. No time saver, and no use for it again, another waste of our money.

The people of Cleveland Ohio was truly amused to see that he is coming to town to give a speech about running a business. Does he really think he is going to gain the city of Cleveland respect by coming and telling them how to run a business when first off, he has no clue how to run a business, has he ever had a business? Second, he can not even run the White House, so I believe his opinion will not be looked upon as serious.

23 comments:

Canadian Sentinel said...

It's all about national socialism...

∞ ≠ ø said...

Congratulations on your first post.
It was very brave of you to post before the council of literary critic, i.e. Balbulican.
I’m sure he will receive your comments respectfully given his recent failure.
I would add to C.S.’s note in concurrence with yours that the Obama administration seeks to transfer wealth to the coffers of the liberal elite, overextend the government fiscally, and create government dependency wherever possible. In the ensuing debacle we will all be happy to take the train. Obama’s legacy, a national railway, will live on (through government funding) forever. I’m sure he visualizes this as a great accomplishment. His time in the third world is showing.

Canadian Sentinel said...

It's her second post, I think, actually...

Gabriella Grizzly of U.S. said...

Thank you both for being so kind. Today was an off day and I wasnt sure how this would be looked upon. Again, thanks. CS, I think he meant my first official posting,not a intro..lol...just saying. ;)

Balbulican said...

'It's her second post, I think, actually.."

It is indeed, CS, and another thoughtful and provocative analysis. Wow, Squiggly, what staggering contempt you are showing for CS's guest ... and what poor computational skills. Tsk, tsk. Please.

∞ ≠ ø said...

I stand corrected.
I had the first one all memory blended with the original rider of the apocalypse post.
See! It was so seamless I overlooked it.

And... bulican man

B-3

Balbulican said...

Gabriella, I would be interested in hearing your views on how the Amish one room school house concept could be applied to the high school and university systems in the US. I guess I'm not clear on how you achieve some kind of national standard with that model.

Canadian Sentinel said...

National standards?

Like the kind Kevin Jennings was hired to impose?

Who needs national standards like that, Balbulican?

I've seen "national standards" in American education, and frankly, they're nothing impressive, thanks to, in a nutshell, the LEFT, the UNIONS, etc., those for whom the children aren't the important thing, but rather themselves and being able to buy yachts and stuff.

Canadian Sentinel said...

"Right to choose".

How about in educating one's children?

With all the money being poured into education and with so little being achieved with it vis a vis the likes of the minority of wealthy citizens of China, I'd recommend private schools and homeschooling.

Lazy-minded liberal parents, of course, can just dump their kids into government schools if they want, but, hey, what's with teachers being paid ridiculously high salaries without having to work all that hard for it? Perhaps they're just in it for the money, not because they care about children and America's future!

Balbulican said...

By national standards, Sentinel, I'm talking about the kind of standards that allow for the licensing of doctors, engineers, and the various professions in which national standards try to guarantee that professionals bring a certain reliable level of skill and knowledge to their practice.

Do you actually have children that you've tried to educate, CS?

Gabriella Grizzly of U.S. said...

Mr. B,
I will address your posting to the question you proposed to me.
Mr. B asked; “Gabriella, I would be interested in hearing your views on how the Amish one room school house concept could be applied to the high school and university systems in the US. I guess I'm not clear on how you achieve some kind of national standard with that model.”
Also, thank you for asking in a nice way. I understand you would like my OPINION/views.
Mr. B, I don’t believe I set a national standard with that model, but more of a statement of fact. I have been around children in both sets of communities. The English children and the Amish children I have seen and the differences in the education system for both. Let me give you an example, in our school systems the children have many opportunities to learn anything from computer technology to foreign languages and much more. The Amish children have no other distractions they learn the 3 basics, reading, writing and arithmetic. Now, to say our children are NOT as smart would be ridicules. They have great opportunities to expand their knowledge, but the key is, do they? Some, not all do. The point I’m making here is this, when children have too much in anything, they cannot focus. I know Mr. B you know this to be true.

Gabriella Grizzly of U.S. said...

The Amish community is a well-rounded structure for them. The children learn the basics and work off of them. I am not saying that the Amish live in paradise, but they are very well educated for what they need in their society just as our children can do, if they apply themselves. Also, I am not generalizing ALL, because of course like in everything; there are different standards for everyone, that’s what makes the world go around. Family life is a huge part of children and how they will succeed or not. They truly go to the school of hard knocks and learn what they need to learn for their future.
I’m not sure there are standards anymore for our children other than go to school learn what you can and good luck. The smart ones will obviously move on to higher education, which I will address later.

Gabriella Grizzly of U.S. said...

The Amish community is a well-rounded structure for them. The children learn the basics and work off of them. I am not saying that the Amish live in paradise, but they are very well educated for what they need in their society just as our children can do, if they apply themselves. Also, I am not generalizing ALL, because of course like in everything; there are different standards for everyone, that’s what makes the world go around. Family life is a huge part of children and how they will succeed or not. They truly go to the school of hard knocks and learn what they need to learn for their future.
I’m not sure there are standards anymore for our children other than go to school learn what you can and good luck. The smart ones will obviously move on to higher education, which I will address later.

Gabriella Grizzly of U.S. said...

Lets move on, you were wondering about homeschooled children. Have you yourself Mr. B every homeschooled? I have and I have to tell you it is much tougher than brick and mortar schools. The advantage is this ..there are no distractions for the child to fret about. No,,Who’s wearing what, fights, etc. The child is focused on work. AHHH,,I know, socialization is next question that goes through everyone’s mind. If you are a parent that cares, you will see about extra curriculum activities. There are also activities for homeschoolers that other homeschool parents put up in the forums. There are many more opportunities to go places and explore than with brick and mortar school due to their funding.
So Mr. B, Im not sure if there are so much in way of national standard anymore, I myself am into my Masters degree and know that I MYSELF has a standard for ME. Always worked hard to get where I had to be, its truly up to the student.
Also, homeschoolers are very well accepted into colleges, because they are soo disciplined and grade level so much higher. Below is some facts:
Homeschooling and college admissions
Parents choose to use standardized test scores to aid colleges in evaluating students. The College Board suggests that homeschooled students keep detailed records and portfolios.[17]
In the last several decades, US colleges and universities have become increasingly open to accepting students from diverse backgrounds, including home-schooled students.[18] According to one source, homeschooling have now matriculated at over 900 different colleges and universities, including institutions with highly selective standards of admission such as the US military academies, Rice University, Harvard University, Stanford University, Cornell University, Brown University, Dartmouth College, and Princeton University.[19]

Gabriella Grizzly of U.S. said...

A growing number of homeschooled students are choosing dual enrollment, earning college credit by taking community college classes while in high school. Others choose to earn college credits through standardized tests such as the College Level Examination Program (CLEP
According to a 2001 U.S. Census survey, 33% of homeschooling households cited religion as a factor in their choice. The same study found that 30% felt school had a poor learning environment, 14% objected to what the school teaches, 11% felt their children were not being challenged at school, and 9% cited morality.[20]
According to the U.S. DOE's "Homeschooling in the United States: 2003", 85 percent of homeschooling parents cited "the social environments of other forms of schooling" (including safety, drugs, sexual harassment, bullying and negative peer-pressure) as an important reason why they homeschool. 72 percent cited "to provide religious or moral instruction" as an important reason, and 68 percent cited "dissatisfaction with academic instruction at other schools."[13] 7 percent cited "Child has physical or mental health problem", 7 percent cited "Child has other special needs", 9 percent cited "Other reasons" (including "child's choice," "allows parents more control of learning" and "flexibility")
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homeschooling
I don’t usually take Wikipedia as true, but this is general info. Now, I think I may have answered way to long here

Balbulican said...

Hi, Gabriella. Thanks for the very thorough response.

To respond to your direct question: no, I have not homeschooled a child myself. I have five sisters, two of whom home-schooled. In Canada the provinces are responsible for the governance of education (I think it's primarily a state-run system as well?), and home schoolers have meet certain standards for testing and curriculum. One sister's experience with her two children was very good, although they experienced some transition issues at a later stage (nothing serious): the other sister didn't feel she was able to meet her own standards, and eventually enrolled her daughter in the system, where again she's doing well. It's a fine alternative for those families that can make that commitment, and who live in communities where they have concern about the mainstream educational system.

Balbulican said...

As you note, it's also a system that works well in the context of a non-technological, agrarian, small-community based lifestyle. However, that's not reflective of the society served by the current educational system. Whether or not that's a good thing is certainly debatable, but it's a reality.

It seems to me that the current system is a response the needs of population that is primarily urban, culturally diverse, increasingly technological, and competing economically with new or emerging political and economic powers overseas - many of whom (I'm thinking of China and India, specifically) have launched major educational reforms, at considerable cost, to strengthen institutional education in their countries. As their literacy and numeracy levels increase and America's decline, I don't see why increasing funding for education is a "dumbass" move.

Am I correct in assuming that states can set their own curricula and determine how best to structure their own educational systems?

Gabriella Grizzly of U.S. said...

Mr.B,
Sorry my response was so long winded..but I did want to give you thorough response. Who said, "dumbass"? Not me..I said dumb witted over his budget. However, you asked if the states can set their own curricula and determine how best to structure their own educational system. Yes they do. They set up the standards according to geographic area.
The idea of "common schools" that adopt the same curriculum and standards isn't new. It first arose in the 1840s, largely owing to the influence of the reformer Horace Mann. But the U.S. Constitution leaves public education to the states, and the states devolve much of the authority to local school districts, of which there are now more than 13,000 in the U.S. The Federal Government provides less than 9% of the funding for K-12 schools. That is why it has proved impossible thus far to create common curriculum standards nationwide. In 1989, President George H.W. Bush summoned the nation's governors to Charlottesville, Va., to attempt a standards-based approach to school reform. The result was only a vague endorsement of "voluntary national standards," which never gained much traction. In 1994, President Bill Clinton got federal money for standards-based reform, but the effort remained in the hands of the states, leading to a wildly varying hodgepodge of expectations for — as well as ideological battles over — math and English curriculums.

Gabriella Grizzly of U.S. said...

The No Child Left Behind Act pushed by President George W. Bush unintentionally exacerbated the problem. It required each state to ensure that its students achieve "universal proficiency" in reading and math — but allowed each to define what that meant. The result was that many states made their job easier by setting their bar lower. This race to the bottom resulted in a Lake Wobegon world where every state declared that its kids were better than average. Take the amazing case of Mississippi. According to the standards it set for itself, 89% of its fourth-graders were proficient or better in reading, making them the best in the nation. Yet according to the random sampling done every few years by the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) test, a mere 18% of the state's fourth-graders were proficient, making them the worst in the nation. Even in Lake Wobegon that doesn't happen. Only in America. The Thomas B. Fordham Institute, led by reformer Chester Finn Jr., has been analyzing state standards for more than a decade and concludes, "Two-thirds of U.S. children attend schools in states with mediocre standards or worse."

Read more: http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1891468,00.html#ixzz1E8JGeHJl

Canadian Sentinel said...

Very impressive, my dear grizzly mama... :)

∞ ≠ ø said...

Hmmmmm... I best go do the dishes now. ;)

Gabriella Grizzly of U.S. said...

CS,grazie!

Balbulican said...

Hi again, G. Sorry, real life occasionally gets in the way of blogging.

Let me focus my two questions a bit.

a) It's not clear to me why increasing funding for education makes Obama a "numbskull", especially in light of trends like a labor market that increasingly demands specialized education and skills, new approaches to pedagogy, a rapidly diversifying and increasingly urbanized population, and a massive (and successful) push among America's economic competitors, especially in Asia, to increase levels of literacy, numeracy, and technical education. In those circumstances boosting funding for education would seem to make perfect sense.

b) Given that States play the lead role in determining their own curricula and educational infrastructure,could they not divert a portion of their funding to support home schooling (if that's what people want?) Given that most families now consist of working parents, do you feel that's a reasonable large-scale alternative?