whats your solution for poverty

[MoSurveyor]

Then you should know that up to 3-4 years it just day care, they aren't in any formal school. That is why many early head-start providers are day care centers, that where young children go.

I guess we've had different experiences so we'll have to agree to disagree on this point. From what I've seen day care is no different than what a babysitter does. Babysitters play with the children, at least ours did, To me that's not the same as "learning" with a real program and the correct books and activities.

 

[Catawba]

Why not try to do it in a manner compatible with American values and conditions?

Who told you education was not compatible with American values and conditions?

 

[Hard Truth]

"Liberals" it seems, fail to remember the last round of idiot-think from industry whereby American businesses tried to adapt Japanese management philosophy in US plants. Of course, what nobody seemed to consider is that WE ARE NOT JAPANESE. Nor are we Germans, nor are we Scandinavians. (Actually, nor am I an American, but that's another topic).

I can tell you from a half century of working in different cultures and countries that very few social policy ideas transfer well across cultural barriers.

The biggest obstacle to adopting the best ideas from Europe in the USA is that in general, the people of European countries think of everyone in their country as part of "them" and don't resent helping them,. (sadly, that is changing with increased immigration in those countries) In the USA, much of the resistance to helping the poor is that they are considered as "others" because of their race and/or nationality.

"Bob Herbert, a New York Times columnist, reported a 1981 interview with Lee Atwater, published in Southern Politics in the 1990s by Alexander P. Lamis, in which Lee Atwater discussed politics in the South:

Questioner: But the fact is, isn't it, that Reagan does get to the Wallace voter and to the racist side of the Wallace voter by doing away with legal services, by cutting down on food stamps?

Atwater: You start out in 1954 by saying, "Nigger, nigger, nigger." By 1968 you can't say "nigger" — that hurts you. Backfires. So you say stuff like forced busing, states' rights and all that stuff. You're getting so abstract now [that] you're talking about cutting taxes, and all these things you're talking about are totally economic things and a byproduct of them is [that] blacks get hurt worse than whites. And subconsciously maybe that is part of it. I'm not saying that. But I'm saying that if it is getting that abstract, and that coded, that we are doing away with the racial problem one way or the other. You follow me — because obviously sitting around saying, "We want to cut this," is much more abstract than even the busing thing, and a hell of a lot more abstract than "Nigger, nigger.""

Southern strategy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Heebie Jeebie]

I guess we've had different experiences so we'll have to agree to disagree on this point. From what I've seen day care is no different than what a babysitter does. Babysitters play with the children, at least ours did, To me that's not the same as "learning" with a real program and the correct books and activities.

At age 1-2 that's how they learn, by playing with them and reading to them. Every daycare I have seen has activities and for the 1-3 year olds they aren't that complex, colors, numbers, picutres, maybe some coloring if they can manipulate a crayon, nap time, outdoor time, even movies (god do I have Barney!). Many jurisdictions have mandatory kindergarten at 5 and a lot also have pre-k at 4. We spend a lot of early childhood education, ost of which is paid for by individuals. It's not like we are spending billions to cover every child, it is just spent on a percentage of them. To say we don't spend money on it is just not true.

 

[MoSurveyor]

At age 1-2 that's how they learn, by playing with them and reading to them. Every daycare I have seen has activities and for the 1-3 year olds they aren't that complex, colors, numbers, picutres, maybe some coloring if they can manipulate a crayon, nap time, outdoor time, even movies (god do I have Barney!). Many jurisdictions have mandatory kindergarten at 5 and a lot also have pre-k at 4. We spend a lot of early childhood education, ost of which is paid for by individuals. It's not like we are spending billions to cover every child, it is just spent on a percentage of them. To say we don't spend money on it is just not true.

Even with the very young there are things you can do but they're rarely used. My daughter waited until her's were three before she started really teaching.

Most of the money comes from state and local sources, always has. Control itself must be at a local level but block grants are critical for many states who simply don't have the money to support a good education system.

 

[cannuck]

Even with the very young there are things you can do but they're rarely used. My daughter waited until her's were three before she started really teaching.

Most of the money comes from state and local sources, always has. Control itself must be at a local level but block grants are critical for many states who simply don't have the money to support a good education system.

I am just the money source around here, but I have a wife, SIL and daughter who have multiple and advanced degrees in early childhood and exceptional education. After 42 years of living around this stuff, some of it has sunk in (I think).

As you seem to be well aware, kids capacity to learn starts of highest from ground zero and decreases gradually over time - so those first 5 years are the beset 5 years they will ever have. What worries me about money being splashed around by governments is that most politicians are easily confused (as was Heebie Jeebie) between education and child care. While there are now several formal education programmes (our grandson began in music around 6 months, gymnastics, swimming and dance before his first birthday) but these are OUTSIDE of the current "system". I don't think our schools are really equipped to do that job. Reason being: most of these programmes are really teaching the parents to teach the children in the face time that they have. The educational programmes that ARE there are usually tied directly to the special interest organization of each field.

The resource we DO have that is not unique, but somewhat so to the US is a society that at least at one time worshipped entrepreneurialism. Funding that in pre-school education COULD be far more effective here than in Europe or other more socialistic societies vs. trying to hammer the same kind of solution (use or far worse yet create yet another state-owned bureaucracy) down the throats of Americans is not likely to be any more successful than any other government initiative.

Where I was going (or at least trying to go) with the cultural differences is that we have the most consumeristic society on the planet, plus some other unique problems in USA. At the mid-income level, we are so addicted to lots of "stuff" plus "location, location, location", and at the lower levels of income the cost of sick care insurance (please refer to Chelsea's post #484) is so onerous that there are very few full time parents to be able to DO these things. It has been pointed out to me numerous times that the critical element is one-on-one time, and you just aren't going to get that in any affordable way from a government funded deal.

BTW: on the cultural side: one of my directors who has been my "minder" on several projects is a PhD in Cultural Anthrapology - and this draws heavily on our discussions during months abroad.

 

[Catawba]

I am just the money source around here, but I have a wife, SIL and daughter who have multiple and advanced degrees in early childhood and exceptional education. After 42 years of living around this stuff, some of it has sunk in (I think).

As you seem to be well aware, kids capacity to learn starts of highest from ground zero and decreases gradually over time - so those first 5 years are the beset 5 years they will ever have. What worries me about money being splashed around by governments is that most politicians are easily confused (as was Heebie Jeebie) between education and child care. While there are now several formal education programmes (our grandson began in music around 6 months, gymnastics, swimming and dance before his first birthday) but these are OUTSIDE of the current "system". I don't think our schools are really equipped to do that job. Reason being: most of these programmes are really teaching the parents to teach the children in the face time that they have. The educational programmes that ARE there are usually tied directly to the special interest organization of each field.

The resource we DO have that is not unique, but somewhat so to the US is a society that at least at one time worshipped entrepreneurialism. Funding that in pre-school education COULD be far more effective here than in Europe or other more socialistic societies vs. trying to hammer the same kind of solution (use or far worse yet create yet another state-owned bureaucracy) down the throats of Americans is not likely to be any more successful than any other government initiative.

Where I was going (or at least trying to go) with the cultural differences is that we have the most consumeristic society on the planet, plus some other unique problems in USA. At the mid-income level, we are so addicted to lots of "stuff" plus "location, location, location", and at the lower levels of income the cost of sick care insurance (please refer to Chelsea's post #484) is so onerous that there are very few full time parents to be able to DO these things. It has been pointed out to me numerous times that the critical element is one-on-one time, and you just aren't going to get that in any affordable way from a government funded deal.

BTW: on the cultural side: one of my directors who has been my "minder" on several projects is a PhD in Cultural Anthrapology - and this draws heavily on our discussions during months abroad.

If the private market could fill the gap, it would have, and we would not be falling behind in education and widening the poverty gap. Charter schools have proven to be no more effective than public schools when they take in the same socio-economic cross-sectiion of students that public schools do.

 

[Fenton]

The biggest obstacle to adopting the best ideas from Europe in the USA is that
in general, the people of European countries think of everyone in their country as part of "them" and don't resent helping them,. (sadly, that is changing with increased immigration in those countries) In the USA, much of the resistance to helping the poor is that they are considered as "others" because of their race and/or nationality.

"Bob Herbert, a New York Times columnist, reported a 1981 interview with Lee Atwater, published in Southern Politics in the 1990s by Alexander P. Lamis, in which Lee Atwater discussed politics in the South:

Questioner: But the fact is, isn't it, that Reagan does get to the Wallace voter and to the racist side of the Wallace voter by doing away with legal services, by cutting down on food stamps?

Atwater: You start out in 1954 by saying, "Nigger, nigger, nigger." By 1968 you can't say "nigger" — that hurts you. Backfires. So you say stuff like forced busing, states' rights and all that stuff. You're getting so abstract now [that] you're talking about cutting taxes, and all these things you're talking about are totally economic things and a byproduct of them is [that] blacks get hurt worse than whites. And subconsciously maybe that is part of it. I'm not saying that. But I'm saying that if it is getting that abstract, and that coded, that we are doing away with the racial problem one way or the other. You follow me — because obviously sitting around saying, "We want to cut this," is much more abstract than even the busing thing, and a hell of a lot more abstract than "Nigger, nigger.""

Southern strategy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

So race baiting is going to end poverty ?

 

[Fenton]

If the private market could fill the gap, it
would have, and we would not be falling behind in education and widening the poverty gap. Charter schools have proven to be no more effective than public schools when they take in the same socio-economic cross-sectiion of students that public schools do.

Charter schools are typically a scam. A good one is the exception.

 

[cannuck]

If the private market could fill the gap, it would have, and we would not be falling behind in education and widening the poverty gap. Charter schools have proven to be no more effective than public schools when they take in the same socio-economic cross-sectiion of students that public schools do.

the private market (and a long list of public facilities and programmes) DOES fill that gap, and very well indeed. However, as I said, the real key is one-on-one instruction, and that takes a full time care provider to do effectively.

The difference between the "right" and the "left" is that one recognizes that people can and should be left to do these things based on their own sense of responsibility, whereas the other believes we can just socialize the initiative and impose it upon the unwilling.

BTW: I can speak for the group of kids who grew up with ours and the band of "super-moms" who did all of this stuff with their kids. Many of those same kids (now nearing 30) are still very close friends, as they have been since toddlers. They also have a stunning list of accomplishments to their credit and are incredibly well adjusted, highly contributing members of society. And they really know how to have fun.

 

[Catawba]

the private market DOES fill that gap, and very well indeed. However, as I said, the real key is one-on-one instruction, and that takes a full time care provider to do effectively.

The difference between the "right" and the "left" is that one recognizes that people can and should be left to do these things based on their own sense of responsibility, whereas the other believes we can just socialize the initiative and impose it upon the unwilling.

BTW: I can speak for the group of kids who grew up with ours and the band of "super-moms" who did all of this stuff with their kids. Many of those same kids (now nearing 30) are still very close friends, as they have been since toddlers. They also have a stunning list of accomplishments to their credit and are incredibly well adjusted, highly contributing members of society. And they really know how to have fun.

We have examples from 36 other rich nations that have succeeded in increasing education and reducing poverty via the public option. Where are the 36 nations that have succeeded in increasing education and reducing poverty through free market efforts?

 

[Hard Truth]

So race baiting is going to end poverty ?

Let me simplify my post for you: Many people don't want to end poverty because they don't like the people who are poor for a variety of bigoted reasons including race and nationality.

 

[Alyssa]

If humans stop reproducing at unsustainable levels, and corporatism, greed, religion, and fear could somehow be removed from society- poverty and even war could end.

 

[Catawba]

If humans stop reproducing at unsustainable levels, and corporatism, greed, religion, and fear could somehow be removed from society- poverty and even war could end.

How do you explain 36 other rich nations being able to reduce poverty by increasing early childhood education without the things you mentioned happening?

 

[Neomalthusian]

How do you explain 36 other rich nations being able to reduce poverty by increasing early childhood education without the things you mentioned happening?

These attributions are too sweeping and broad to be able to engage in a meaningful discussion. Country comparisons and education/poverty/healthcare dynamics have way too many variables to proceed. It's a non-starter of a question.

 

[Catawba]

These attributions are too sweeping and broad to be able to engage in a meaningful discussion. Country comparisons and education/poverty/healthcare dynamics have way too many variables to proceed. It's a non-starter of a question.

I'm guessing you think it makes more sense to try some libertarian theory that has never worked anywhere, rather than learning from 36 other rich nations that actually reduced poverty by increasing early childhood education?

 

[Fenton]

Let me simplify my post for you: Many people don't want to end poverty because they don't like the people who are poor for a variety of bigoted reasons including race and nationality.

That's ridiculous, unless your a Democrat that is.

It's not 1963, times have changed and those who perpetuate the false narrative of racism are typically the one's who cry wolf.

Our society is much better off if all races are economically prosperous. But problems within the subcultures aren't isolated to white males you know, and sometimes those issues can only be addressed successfully from the inside out.

 

[Neomalthusian]

I'm guessing you think it makes more sense to try some libertarian theory that has never worked anywhere, rather than learning from 36 other rich nations that actually reduced poverty by increasing early childhood education?

I must repeat my post (#515). This extremely broad country-comparison talking point du jour is a non-starter.

 

[Catawba]

I must repeat my post (#515). This extremely broad country-comparison talking point du jour is a non-starter.

OK, We know that early childhood education helps reduce poverty in this country and has done the same in 36 other rich nations, why would we not pursue it?

 

[Neomalthusian]

OK, We know that early childhood education helps reduce poverty in this country and has done the same in 36 other rich nations, why would we not pursue it?

What do you mean pursue it?

Don't get me wrong, Catawba, parents' ability to meet their children's needs (especially in their infancy and early childhood) is paramount. All people who are reproducing absolutely must be committed to and able to meet their children's needs. Yet we let anyone reproduce as much as they want, even those who demonstrate utter incompetence to parent.

But this has nothing to do with "36 other rich countries" or whatever. That's a non-starter.

 

[Catawba]

What do you mean pursue it?

I mean why have we not acted to increase headstart efforts as the president has proposed?

Don't get me wrong, Catawba, parents' ability to meet their children's needs (especially in their infancy and early childhood) is paramount. All people who are reproducing absolutely must be committed to and able to meet their children's needs. Yet we let anyone reproduce as much as they want, even those who demonstrate utter incompetence to parent.

The President has spent a fair amount of time on this very issue, but it doesn't mean we simply say its all up to the parents. It is much too important to the country's future well being, as is the cost of the resulting poverty to American taxpayers.

But this has nothing to do with "36 other rich countries" or whatever. That's a non-starter.

Why is a not starter, except for ideological reasons? Why would we ignore what the other rich nations have done to reduce poverty?

 

[DDD]

Greater economy should help with poverty. But how does education helps with poverty? India has some great educated minds (e.g., in programming) but it is not as wealthy?

 

[Neomalthusian]

I mean why have we not acted to increase headstart efforts as the president has proposed?

The President has spent a fair amount of time on this very issue, but it doesn't mean we simply say its all up to the parents. It is much too important to the country's future well being, as is the cost of the resulting poverty to American taxpayers.

1) Why are you making this about Obama? You're like a GD campaign staffer.

2) Public education should be about imparting educational material (academic subjects) to children. Coming up with an early childhood public funded babysitting service might help kids who are born to incompetent and oblivious parents in that they would not have to spend all their time in the presence of such profound incompetence, but that's not really "education." It's the state taking care of idiots' children for them.

Why is a not starter, except for ideological reasons? Why would we ignore what the other rich nations have done to reduce poverty?

The federal government shouldn't do ANYTHING to reduce poverty. There are things it might do that would have a secondary or tertiary impact of ultimately seeing poverty be reduced, but a federal government should not be thought of as our poverty reducer.

 

[Catawba]

Greater economy should help with poverty. But how does education helps with poverty? India has some great educated minds (e.g., in programming) but it is not as wealthy?

Here you go!

Education and Poverty Eradication

 

[Catawba]

1) Why are you making this about Obama?

Do you know anyone else in the US that has put forth a plan to help increase early childhood education?

2) Public education should be about imparting educational material (academic subjects) to children. Coming up with an early childhood public funded babysitting service might help kids who are born to incompetent and oblivious parents in that they would not have to spend all their time in the presence of such profound incompetence, but that's not really "education." It's the state taking care of idiots' children for them.

Where did you get the notion that early childhood education was a "babysitting service"? And how does leaving children to grow up to be unproductive and likely criminal improve the country's economic outlook for the future?

The federal government shouldn't do ANYTHING to reduce poverty. There are things it might do that would have a secondary or tertiary impact of ultimately seeing poverty be reduced, but a federal government should not be thought of as our poverty reducer.

Do you think more and more poverty makes us a stronger country?