| I see the SCDP has a post concerning a new bill. Six whole days after the School Funding decision was passed down, Sens. Lourie and Smith of Columbia introduced the Pre-Kindergarten Investment Act. It made me reflect some more on that decision, and I think there's a major error in the Judge's ruling. I haven't read the bill, but the release states it makes Pre-K mandatory. Here is the problem. The decision stated that the funding for early years education was insufficient, but what does Pre-K have to do with funding? What we have just set up is another excuse for our failing schools, bigger goverment, and not holding parents responsible for educating their kids before school starts. Over the past 6 years, South Carolina has addressed the problems of large class size, poor teacher pay, teacher training , equitable distribution, and now it will be that we wait too long to put them in school. I'm sorry, but we are running out of reasons for why our kids , particlarly in rural areas , aren't succeeding. It's too bad that they are not going after the problem: parents not teaching their kids in the early years. The Orangeburg T&D had a very straightforward article, emphasizing how generationally, there was no focus on education, and the major obstacle that it's become in education. Telling parents to be more active in the learning process works, but it's easier for some in Columbia and Washington to say that it's the government's fault - mainly Republicans. This thinking is taking us down a slippery slope. Get ready for the following term this year: Investing in Government. Those words make me cringe, but that's the plan. Just pay your taxes, and we'll raise your kids for you. What happens when this fails ( and you know it will )? Send kids to school at three? Two ? If it gets bad enough, we might make children wards of the state at birth, because parents are incapable of educating them. While this is ridiculous, one point is inescapable. For hundreds of years, children all over the world have started school at age 5, and been educated properly. For some reason though, people in South Carolina feel that we need to start at 4, and that it's the government's fault . No amount of money will educate our children. Only effort and teamwork between parents , teachers and the community will. Now go read to your kids. |
Friday, January 06, 2006
Maybe We Can Start 4Pre-K for Newborns.......
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
7 comments:
If you're gonna win in the 6th, you better have some damn good ideas about education. As a former Clyburn constituent, I know of the educational malaise in that part of the state. As a product of the Lee County School District, I've seen the worst in the state up close and personal. The only way you stand a chance in that district is by convincing black voters that things can be better in the future for their children. Just my opinion of course...
Chip,
Thanks for your input. Education is a tightrope issue. As a Federal candidate, it's tough particularly because the GOP's stance is the states should control funding and decisions. You can't stand behind that and win in my district - you and I know that, but the GOP leadership doesn't care much if kids can't read in Lynchburg or Bishopville.
The first change I'd like to see is the LIFE scholarship be ended, with most of the funding going to the early ed. programs , as per the ruling. Most of that money goes to kids in more affluent districts as it is. A need based state scholarship program would be a more targeted solution.
Secondly, there needs to be a tech ed. center in Walterboro. People there have to drive 45 miles to Charleston or Orangeburg to get skill training.
Thirdly, there needs to be TERI reform. legislators are telling me the program is getting as bad as Medicare. All of these reforms are state based, so I wouldn't have a lot of control there.
The whole court case was over rural funding, but to me, the ironic part was by the time the case came to court, equity in funding was taken care of. I'm not going to lie, but if rural districts expect to get the same total dollars to educate 10,000 kids as others get to educate 30,000 kids, they'll be disappointed - Democrat or Republican House and Senate.
It's a sad fact that it may take another generation of kids for rural blacks to catch up. Adults who can't read can't teach their kids to read, so funding for adult literacy, particularly for those who have children, would shorten the lag time. Administrators will always ask for more money, but a dollar will not teach a child to read, only a concerted, focused effort will.
My ears are always open, so add any suggestions you have - I sure don't know everything. Calvin rules!!
You hit on something there... It has to start with the parents and go down from there, and you need to find a way to convince the parents, to educate the parents. Money doesn't solve the problem, want to solves the problem. And if you can make parents want to ensure that their children will have better prospects than themselves, you have a chance. But I'm sure you know that there will be plenty of money behind Clyburn, so you are going to need alot of that too, or he will win the war by putting himself out there more. Best of luck.
Who are you behind in the governor race? Just wondering.
Chip, Thanks. Money will not solve education, but any shift of funds will be attacked as a cut. Improving adult literacy is a key, but it likely will need some funding to do it.
As far as my own funding, I can only keep plugging along , and hope I catch a break. If I make the GOP look much better to the black voters and lose, I'll still consider it a victory.
I am still a Sanford supporter. Lovelace does have some good ideas on Medicare, and Sanford should listen to them. However, Sanford has done almost exactly what he said he would do - restrict the size of government. I would expect a little more happiness between him and the Legislature in the second term.
You don't like the Sanford Plan for Medicare? I have not heard Lovelace's idea, so I can't comment. I do think that Sanford's makes a lot of sense, at least in principle.
Are you in Florence or Charleston? I've noticed you mention both alot.
They probably should listen to each other. I don't know a lot on Sanford's, but I've met Lovelace on the road a couple times. His primary good point is that Medicare is wasted on non-emergency visits to hospitals. His bad point is to raise the cigarette tax 87 cents a pack to the National avg. to fund it. Three cents a pack tax is low, but that kind of hike is crazy.
I have a home in Florence, and I work and have an apartment in Charleston, so I am in both areas a lot.
The main point of Sanford's is that instead of just paying for every time somebody gets medical treatment, give them a private insurance plan, and make them pay a small co-pay. Cuts down on fraud, ER visits, etc. Also increases patient responsibility because it makes them more selective about when they seek care. Doesn't deny them care, but doesn't encourage them to go to the ER for a cold either. I like it.
As far as raising cig tax, don't care. I just quit, and 87 cent tax would have helped me make the decision. I think it will blow up in his face, I don't like the fact that it increases taxes, but affects me nada. Until they raise taxes to help bail out tobacco farmers, of course.
Near WAHS? Just guessing from the website?
Post a Comment