Obama's Education Policy
raszputini
Posts: 119
Education is a pretty important issue in any election, but especially this one. We continue to fall behind most other developed countries in terms of test scores and graduation rates, as well as just knowledge. Following are the different parts to how Obama wants to address education issues. This can primarily from his web page. I thought we could discuss what everyone thinks about them. In no way am I suggesting these policies are his entire program. If you've got more information than I about his plans, please post them, so we can evaluate them as well .
Pre-Kindergarten
1. Zero to Five - Obama will provide Early Learning Challenge grants to promote state-implemented pre-kindergarten education. It seem like head start to me, but I don't know the specifics on this. I can't find them anywhere.
2. Head Start and Early Head Start - Obama will quadruple funding for EHS, and increase funding for HS. Since he's doing both Zero to Five and Head Start, I assume there are differences. I'd like to know more about what those are.
3. Child Care - Obama will provide affordable and reliable child care.
K-12
1. Reform No Child Left Behind. Primarily by funding it and by improving assessment standards
2. Math & Science Focus - By recruitng better teachers and by improving the science curriculum
3. Dropouts - He has offered legislation to fund increased intervention strategies at the middle school level.
4. After School - Will double the funding of 21st Century Learning Centers, which offer afterschool programs
5. STEP UP - Summer programs for disadvantaged children created by funding local schools and community organizations
6. College Outreach - increase the funding for programs like Upward Bound to better prepare high schooler for college
7. English Language Learners - Meant to help limited English students excel by holding the institutions accountable if they don't graduate.
TEACHERS
1. Teacher scholarships - Obama will fund four years of education in return for those participants being obligated to teach in a high-need location
2. Accreditation - Mandate that all "education" colleges be accredited. Also will mandate teacher assessment exams, as well as fund 30,000 new teacher to high-need locations.
3. Recruiting - Develop a mentor program for teachers and TAs, will also pay teachers for collaboration time to foster cooperation.
4. Raises - Obama will figure out a way to increase teacher's pay without imposing standards. Will also give individual districts the ability to reward teachers that are particularly valuable
HIGHER EDUCATION
1. American Opportunity Tax Credit - A refundable credit that covers the first $4000 of higher education for everyone, and will also cover 2/3 of the cost of the average university. Obama will mandate that the credit be available at the time of enrollment.
2. Simplify Financial Aid Process - You'll be able to apply by checking a box on your tax return. No more FAFSA.
Pre-Kindergarten
1. Zero to Five - Obama will provide Early Learning Challenge grants to promote state-implemented pre-kindergarten education. It seem like head start to me, but I don't know the specifics on this. I can't find them anywhere.
2. Head Start and Early Head Start - Obama will quadruple funding for EHS, and increase funding for HS. Since he's doing both Zero to Five and Head Start, I assume there are differences. I'd like to know more about what those are.
3. Child Care - Obama will provide affordable and reliable child care.
K-12
1. Reform No Child Left Behind. Primarily by funding it and by improving assessment standards
2. Math & Science Focus - By recruitng better teachers and by improving the science curriculum
3. Dropouts - He has offered legislation to fund increased intervention strategies at the middle school level.
4. After School - Will double the funding of 21st Century Learning Centers, which offer afterschool programs
5. STEP UP - Summer programs for disadvantaged children created by funding local schools and community organizations
6. College Outreach - increase the funding for programs like Upward Bound to better prepare high schooler for college
7. English Language Learners - Meant to help limited English students excel by holding the institutions accountable if they don't graduate.
TEACHERS
1. Teacher scholarships - Obama will fund four years of education in return for those participants being obligated to teach in a high-need location
2. Accreditation - Mandate that all "education" colleges be accredited. Also will mandate teacher assessment exams, as well as fund 30,000 new teacher to high-need locations.
3. Recruiting - Develop a mentor program for teachers and TAs, will also pay teachers for collaboration time to foster cooperation.
4. Raises - Obama will figure out a way to increase teacher's pay without imposing standards. Will also give individual districts the ability to reward teachers that are particularly valuable
HIGHER EDUCATION
1. American Opportunity Tax Credit - A refundable credit that covers the first $4000 of higher education for everyone, and will also cover 2/3 of the cost of the average university. Obama will mandate that the credit be available at the time of enrollment.
2. Simplify Financial Aid Process - You'll be able to apply by checking a box on your tax return. No more FAFSA.
Post edited by Unknown User on
0
Comments
I did get a chuckle at No. 3 though:
So, what, I can just drop my little bastard off on the South Lawn of the White House and say, "I'll be back by five?"
Is he running a country, or a KinderCare?
for the least they could possibly do
Lack of reliable childcare keeps innumerable parents out of the workforce, parents who may want or need to work. (Some do, some don't -- I'm not arguing the pros and cons of either, here, merely saying that those who need to work should be able to support their families and have reliable and trustworthy childcare if they need it.)
What about families making minimum wage? Who is watching their kids? And under what conditions? Why isn't the same government who provides food stamps providing childcare stamps? Why in a country that spends so much time bemoaning outsourcing and globalization are we not taking every opportunity to make sure our own workforce can get to work?
If there's nobody to watch your child, you're not going to work.
My 2c...
I don't really have a problem with it. I just got a chuckle at the way it was phrased. I pictured Obama playing the Eddie Murphy role in "Daddy Day Care."
for the least they could possibly do
As with every government program, my questions would be, who pays for it? And where do you draw the line at who is eligible to receive it?
for the least they could possibly do
Expand the Child and Dependent Care Tax Credit: The Child and Dependent Care Tax Credit provides too little relief to families that struggle to afford child care expenses. Barack Obama will reform the Child and Dependent Care Tax Credit by making it refundable and allowing low-income families to receive up to a 50 percent credit for their child care expenses.
As to whom is eligible. I assume it will be means tested and there will be an income cut off point??
The way i see it, affordable and reliable childcare should be a priority. It's disgusting that decent, affordable places are not already set up to accomodate families.
They could also stop wasting hundreds of billions of dollars on a stupid war, while people in our own country are getting screwed. Think of all the extra money we would have to really make a difference to peoples lives. Gah.
A lot of these programs have merit. Headstart, for example. We've had over 40 years to gather stats on headstart. Very simply, in works. Children who attend head start, on average, make more money, adcance further academically, and are generally more successful.
(http://www.nytimes.com/2004/11/21/magazine/21IDEA.html?_r=1&pagewanted=2&oref=login&oref=slogin). I'm not sure exactly what the unique contribution of this Zero to Five program is. But expanding headstart would certainly be a good thing. We are missing the boat on early child development and education.
A lot of the other examples of funding things seem more like fluff to me. Taking a program that is in its infancy and arguing it needs more funding is a pretty risk-free move, politically. The whole "Obama will provide adequate and affordable childcare" item has gotten a few laughs, but there is something to look at there. One of the reasons I vote conservatively more often than not is that a trap of the Democratic Party has always been writing checks they can't cash. I don't want this to be a GOP vs. Democrat debate, the GOP has certainly had it's failings as well - we have a posterchild of failure in office now. But, honestly - democrats, especially during a campaign, can spend money three times as fast as they can make it. Not all of them, but A LOT of them. Providing childcare, giving teachers raises, paying college tuition, hiring 30,000 new teachers immediately, paying for after-school programs, quadrupling the head start budget, doubling some other budgets, increasing the funds for Upward Bound, etc., etc., etc. racks up quite a bill.
It would be easy to say "we could just cut program X (Iraq, space exploration, Afghanistan, police, the military) and we'd have plenty of money".....and we probably would. But unfortunately, this isn't how our government usually works. We usually just expand the budget, which results in higher taxes or greater budget deficits, if we pay for them at all. Obama has mentioned delaying the space station launch by 5 years which comes up with a ridiculous sum of money, which we are to assume is enough. I think he should be a little more specific with these numbers. I think, if they do indeed add up, it could do nothing but help him politically - by making him look like a wise fiscal manager as well as a policy-proposer. He has to know that, the fact that he doesn't...well.......mmmm....errrr.
The idea of focussing on math and science is a double-edged sword. Certainly increasing math and science scores is important. But in my opinion, nothing substitutes for an effective liberal arts education. Math can teach you to add, but it doesn't teach you to critically think or to communicate effectively. I don't think "focussing on math & science" is the right approach, as it somehow places them higher on the hierarchical scale of education. The correct approach is to become more effective at education in general.
I like the idea of childcare, and I think state-funded childcare is probably something we should spend more money on. Parents are left with stupid choices right now, like leave your kid with someone you don't trust or you can't work. Most studies that I've read conclude that most of the after school and dropout intervention programs are not really very cost-effective. I think beating up the school if an individual with limited English doesn't graduate is pretty off the mark, and that's very clearly what his position is.
You know, it wasn't that long ago that education was a local or State issue. It really seems that as the Federal Government took over education, education has suffered. We used to have the most effective educational system in the world.
I really think that, with the right funding level, allocating funds to the States to use as they see fit in terms of education is the way to go. You don't force standardized bullshit down their throats and you don't force unfunded mandates like No Child Left Behind down their throats, and you leave the educational decision-making to the folks at the local and State levels, where the accountability is the highest, and good things will happen. Localized education, while not being standardized, fosters the highest level of accountability and also fosters innovation, creativity and individualized methods, which to me, are crucial to the learning process. The Federal Government can do the George Will plan, and instead of use it for retirement, you use it for education. You drop $500 in a bank account for every kid when they are born, drawing CD-level interest, and by the time they are ready to go to college, they've got it covered. That's the higher education plan.
While some of Obama's ideas in terms of education are good, I think at best it is a band-aid fix to an intrinsic problem. The Fed needs to get the hell out early education and simply needs to be used as a funding mechanism to get education tax dollars back down to the state level, and as a way of creating the revenue needed for individuals to make their own decisions about higher education. You have an "education account", you don't go to school within a certain time period from graduation, that money get put back into the program.
What about recess? Our children are among the most obese in the world. Get them up and moving around. Energized while in school. Maybe they'll do better, and focus more, rather than fall asleep.
Parental involvement needs to be an emphasis. I teach in Buffalo, 2nd poorest city in the nation. The only parents we ever see are those whose kids do well. I know many work, but many don't. They just don't want to be bothered. There has to be a cultural shift in our nation to emphasize the importance of education in order for our schools to improve.
Set realistic goals for the mandates that aren't just based on test scores. That's what got us in trouble with No Child Left Behind.
Its called lawsuits. If a kid skins his knee during recess, parents overlook the fact that he was playing, instead they look for a reason to sue.
There's no band aid here, I disagree with that.
A band aid is a tax stimulus check or a gas holiday.
I'll agree Obama's heart is probably in the right place here. It just reminds me of the same kind of promises we hear every four years from every presidential candidate.
You never hear a presidential candidate say, "Screw education. We've got no more money for that."
They're always promising more money and a better system. It just never comes to fruition. Maybe this time will be the exception that proves the rule.
for the least they could possibly do
I'm not a fan of that because I feel like it's not really solving the overall problem in the system. It's moving the kids that can move to better schools and keeping the others in, what might be, "worse" schools.
i have to say john mccain's education policy doesn't sound like more money and a better system. it's pretty vague compared to obama's and sounds like 'screw failing schools instead of helping them'.
http://www.johnmccain.com/Informing/issues/19ce50b5-daa8-4795-b92d-92bd0d985bca.htm
and here again is where you can find more info on obama policies, education included:
http://www.barackobama.com/pdf/ObamaBlueprintForChange.pdf
cross the river to the eastside
McCain is for school vouchers, which I believe someone on this thread already brought up.
I'm not sure where I stand on those just yet. The principle: "If your child's school sucks, feel free to take him to another school" sounds good in theory, but I'm not sure it will work so well in practice.
I think, overall, I believe schools are a local problem requiring a local solution. I don't think some dude in Washington D.C. knows what's best for students in rural Montana ... and so forth.
I also know that no amount of money ... no amount of improvements ... are going to make a difference to those kids who just don't want to learn. I think the vast majority of kids who don't pass high school (not all, certainly, but most) aren't brought up to value education, and so they just don't give a rat's ass.
It's not because they're stupid. And it's not because their teachers suck. They just don't care. And no amount of money can fix that.
for the least they could possibly do
there are local education departments though, and those dudes in DC are representing local concerns. i do think that the federal government should have some say in broad education concerns and the states should also have some say, otherwise why be the united states? not that i'm the biggest fan of some red states impacting my blue state utopia, but i'm just saying.
and about the end of your post, i think it's way more complicated than that. it's not that they're brought up to not value education, but their environments can make it so they don't want to learn. shitty underfunded schools and materials, etc. have you watched season 4 of the wire? you should.
cross the river to the eastside
Yeah, I agree with that. I mean, there do need to be government standards. So you don't have some state (I'm looking at you, Arkansas) say, "Hey, you can count to four. Congratulations, you're a high school graduate."
I'll agree a lot of this is cyclical. Mom doesn't care about education because she wasn't brought up that way, and so on and so forth, and passes that down to her kids.
A lot of what is wrong with America could be fixed by parents stepping up and taking some responsibility. But some of them won't, perhaps because they are lazy and good for nothing, or perhaps because this is the attitude fostered by government handouts.
for the least they could possibly do
What does it mean for a candidate to have an Education Policy. Is this simply designed to help voters understand how they feel about the issue. Surely these "policies" don't get implemented when they are elected.
I think you and I are on the same page here, Abuskedti. I don't think most of these will be implemented either, but Obama is at least serious about claiming they will:
"Though Obama called for a renewed investment in math and science education, his plan would actually pull money from the federal government's greatest investments and achievements in math and science. Obama would delay funding for the NASA Constellation program for five years, though he would maintain the $500 million in funding the program would receive for its manufacturing and technology base, in order to help fund his education policy. The campaign did not say how much money delaying the program would provide.
The plan would also be paid for through the auctioning off of surplus public land, closing the CEO pay deductibility loophole, reduce costs of standardized procurement and through the some of the money that would be saved by ending the war in Iraq."
http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2007/11/20/474908.aspx
Schools that don't adequately prepare their students for college very quickly get that reputation, and then it's up to those localities to force the issue. It worked before, for the most part.
Federal standards inevitably stifle creativity, the question is just how much.
while i agree with McCain's view of having school vouchers. i also don't see how it will work for one reason. what if those schools become to big and what made it a good school is ruined becuase there are too many kids in the classes. also, while i understand your view about parents having to give a damm, i have to say that some parents are working so hard to give their children the basics that maybe they are not available as much as they would like. i still believe that a good educational policy must be a great economic policy. like the great 2-PAC once said "instead of war on poverty they got a war on drugs, so the police can bother me"
- Soren Aabye Kierkegaard (1813-1855)
If you haven't got anything nice to say about anybody, come sit next to me."
- Alice Roosevelt Longworth (1884-1980)