Randy Inman
Kim K.
Education- What a Costly and Ineffective Plan Looks Like
June 25th 2008 14:00
With “No Child Left Behind” an obvious failure of our education system, it is no surprise that education is a topic that every candidate wants to bring up.
Barack Obama's plan all sounds fantastically idealist on paper. Preschool education for kids from birth through 5. Lowering college costs by eliminating the middle man and raising the Pell grant limits. Give funding to minorty schools so that kids can get a better education. Offer incentives to college students who agree to teach in troubled schools when they get out of college.
When you get through all of the beautiful sounding ideas, what we find is that in practice they are not only costly economically, but just terrible ideas.
To start with, preschool is not something that infants go to. Infants go to daycare. He claims to want to stress the importance of parents in a child’s education, yet won’t this encourage parents to put their kids in federal government funded daycare? Why should we as taxpayers be paying for anyone’s child to go to daycare. Clinton’s plan called for preschool for age 4, and for once I think she was being more reasonable than her counterpart.
Raising Pell Grant limits is all well and good for those that can get them, but this does not help those of us who could not qualify for them in the first place. I come from a family of 5 children. My father made a good enough living to keep our heads above water for my entire youth. Because of this, I was not able to qualify for a grant. I now have $70,000 in student loan debt, and I’m tired about hearing about these people who got some assistance who still have debt. Deal with it.
Eliminating the middle man means one thing- no competition. No competition means no choice for students. Currently, students can shop around for the best deal they can find on a student loan, just like someone buying a car or a house. Under this plan, the government would tell you what the rate was going to be and that would be the end of it. Sure, they claim that it would make it cheaper, but any time the government has complete control, you can bet that promises will be broken. Once a policy is in place, good luck getting rid of it. Just because you are someone who trusts Obama doesn't mean you will trust the next guy.
Funding to minority schools. Well, isnt’ that the responsibility of the people who live in that district? When you live in a particular district, you pay taxes to it for a reason. At best, the State should be helping those schools. The federeal government shouldn’t be responsible for any particular school more than another.
Did you know what you wanted to be when you were 18? I thought I did, but that all changed the older I got. Most people have dreams of who and what they are going to be, but when the reality of adult life hits, things change. I wonder what would happen to the teens who go into college on incentive programs to teach to troubled schools who suddenly realize the harsh reality of teaching in troubled schools isn’t as inspiring as they imagined. Will they have to pay back those incentives? Will they be sued if they back out of their contract?
I firmly believe that education is the responsibility of the schools. If the government wants to help improve education, than the solution is not more intervention, but to back off. If we open the school systems to competition, allow for parents to pay their tax dollars to the school of their choosing, than naturally the schools that are successful will profit and those that don’t will be forced to revise their plans in order to succeed.
Barack Obama's plan all sounds fantastically idealist on paper. Preschool education for kids from birth through 5. Lowering college costs by eliminating the middle man and raising the Pell grant limits. Give funding to minorty schools so that kids can get a better education. Offer incentives to college students who agree to teach in troubled schools when they get out of college.
enjoy my cheap paint graphic
When you get through all of the beautiful sounding ideas, what we find is that in practice they are not only costly economically, but just terrible ideas.
To start with, preschool is not something that infants go to. Infants go to daycare. He claims to want to stress the importance of parents in a child’s education, yet won’t this encourage parents to put their kids in federal government funded daycare? Why should we as taxpayers be paying for anyone’s child to go to daycare. Clinton’s plan called for preschool for age 4, and for once I think she was being more reasonable than her counterpart.
Raising Pell Grant limits is all well and good for those that can get them, but this does not help those of us who could not qualify for them in the first place. I come from a family of 5 children. My father made a good enough living to keep our heads above water for my entire youth. Because of this, I was not able to qualify for a grant. I now have $70,000 in student loan debt, and I’m tired about hearing about these people who got some assistance who still have debt. Deal with it.
Eliminating the middle man means one thing- no competition. No competition means no choice for students. Currently, students can shop around for the best deal they can find on a student loan, just like someone buying a car or a house. Under this plan, the government would tell you what the rate was going to be and that would be the end of it. Sure, they claim that it would make it cheaper, but any time the government has complete control, you can bet that promises will be broken. Once a policy is in place, good luck getting rid of it. Just because you are someone who trusts Obama doesn't mean you will trust the next guy.
Funding to minority schools. Well, isnt’ that the responsibility of the people who live in that district? When you live in a particular district, you pay taxes to it for a reason. At best, the State should be helping those schools. The federeal government shouldn’t be responsible for any particular school more than another.
Did you know what you wanted to be when you were 18? I thought I did, but that all changed the older I got. Most people have dreams of who and what they are going to be, but when the reality of adult life hits, things change. I wonder what would happen to the teens who go into college on incentive programs to teach to troubled schools who suddenly realize the harsh reality of teaching in troubled schools isn’t as inspiring as they imagined. Will they have to pay back those incentives? Will they be sued if they back out of their contract?
I firmly believe that education is the responsibility of the schools. If the government wants to help improve education, than the solution is not more intervention, but to back off. If we open the school systems to competition, allow for parents to pay their tax dollars to the school of their choosing, than naturally the schools that are successful will profit and those that don’t will be forced to revise their plans in order to succeed.
| 55 |
| Vote |
Add To: 
Subscribe to this blog
Comment by Anonymous
Well: The ivies had a field day when they realized they could charge what they wanted because students loans, etc wouldn't be just something for those who really needed these government programs. Before long, the clerk working night hours at a 7-11 while attending day college classes was effectively subsidizing the low-interest loans made equally available to the kids of upper middle class and wealthy parents who all of a sudden had a wonderful windfall to ensure their kids would have an added advantage.
Sadly, some of them not only got the advantage, they also got and kept the "attitude" that came with it, and even worse, some of these former college kids, now middle agers with their own college kids are even worse when it comes to flaunting classicist attitudes and being stingy towards the poor. These folks learned how to pull their drawbridges up all too well after they got their opportunities and took 'em as one famous Tammany Hall pol, George Washington Plunkitt put it.
I'm all in favor of government programs, but providing they go to actually helping those who actuallly need the aid; not the already pampered kids of college professors living in rent-controlled apartments or who've been "emancipated" so they'd qualify for more financial aid while "burdening" Professors Mom and Pop who are already well-tenured and manage no less to squeeze every tax dollar out of the very poor they whine so eloquently about and do so paltry little for.