Because they are liberal programs. Why do we need an all day Government nanny care for children when they should be with their parents or in private day care? They are mostly pushed by liberals, so that is why they are considered liberal social programs.

I think you are just being invasive because you do not want to admit students are no better of then before. And, that of course is my point—we have spent billions of dollars on programs that are pushed as being beneficial to students, yet they are not.

Why not use DC? They champion those liberal programs, and of course since Timmy’s program is only targeting the poor, it is a good example to use as a comparison. Look at the State of California, they used to have the best public schools in the Nation. Can the same be said now? Nope. Yet, they have all sorts of early intervention programs for children.

I don’t think pre-school programs are liberal. We are never going to agree on the original premise because you insist on affixing your own label onto the subject. Therefore, if we cannot agree on the premise, why waste either of our precious time.

Perhaps the place for discussion might be to debate ‘liberal.’ Why is pre-k liberal? Is it liberal if I send my child to private pre-k or is it just liberal if it is part of a public school system? Is public kindergarten liberal? Is all public school liberal? Is all school, private or public liberal?

All I know about DC schools is what I read about in the paper. I am not going to off on a tangent about something I have only read about. Schools are only a microcosm of the society they serve. Given the population in DC, I believe this is a slippery slope I don’t even want to approach. I think it speaks for itself. If the majority of students in DC schools were white or black middle class students, I seriously doubt if the topic would even come up.

This does have something to do with liberal social programs. The thread is about Timmy Kaines liberal social program and if it is worth having. So, of course it is logical to compare it to existing programs. Most of the major liberal social programs have been around since the 60’s, so that of course is why I brought up what has changed in the last forty years.

I think it is bit naive to think you know nothing about the DC public school system. If you live in this area, as I think you said you do, it is hard to not read the newspaper and fail to see stories on the DC school system.

It seems you simply do not want to admit these are liberal social programs, and they have failed in making children better educated.

Which brings us back to the plan being pushed by Timmy Kaine. It is not needed, and is a waste of money.

There is nothing liberal about talking of birth control. The Church may disagree, but unless you factor that in, there is nothing liberal about it. There is not emphasis in this country on this subject and whenever it is raised the Church steps in.

I know very little about MP or their school system. I don’t have any idea how much the superintendent makes there. I do know their teacher salaries are fairly competitive with the area.

I personally think it is rather obscene for the superintendents to make so much more than the average teacher. The counter-argument is that a superintendent is a CEO. On the other hand, I think what most CEOs make in private industry is also obscene. At least I am consistent.

This is in reference to the superintendent of MP. The smallest school system with the highest taxes proportionately.

The discussion is NOT about ‘liberal social programs.’ The question was “What has changed in the last forty years that now makes it impossible for poor kids to do well in school?”

I described the typical school setting in a large town in Virginia over 40 years ago. I cited some changes I have seen. I didn’t attach labels, just facts.

I asked you to give specifics. You have not other than honing in on the Head Start system, which has changed drastically since I taught a class that one summer. (and not in the town I described)

You are a very difficult person to establish a dialogue with because you continually go back to the point you want to make, regardless of what the other person has said. I believe that is your attempt at control.

Let me repeat. I never wrote the piece about how things were then to compare or contrast schools in the 50’s and 60’s to the head start program. It was written to compare and contrast what has changed since then.

As for Washington DC schools. I know nothing about them nor do I want to know anything about them. I also know nothing about schools in Montana or on Indian reservations. Why would I even discuss something I know nothing about.

Perhaps you might want to consider that the birth rate is considerably higher for poor people than it is for the middle class. Perhaps if people stopped spawning children they don’t have the means or the ability to take care of, some of the problem would be self-correcting. Serious question here…is that liberal or conservative thinking?

I can remember the poor kids didn’t get a hot lunch. They brought mayonaise and lard sandwiches from home. Some sat at the lunch table without lunch. Some of these kids also smelled bad. Kids held their noses and made fun of them.

I made the statement about headstart and smelly kids based on what you wrote above. I don’t know why you would add that to a discussion about liberal social programs if they did not help out people to not smell bad.

Sure it is liberal thing to spend billions of dollars on “feel good” programs, headstart, pre k, etc, that have not exactly met the goals of those that support such programs. If they did, I suppose why would always hear calls for more money?

Can you say a child in Washington DC with all of the liberal social programs available is getting a better education then a child received in DC forty years ago?

And, that is the point I am making. After billions of dollars spent on these programs is our public education system any better off, and if the goal of the public education system is to produce educated students has it been worth it?

I would say it has not been worth it and has not produced better educated children. Polls and statistics show American children are not getting smarter, or not matching up as well against their foreign counterparts as they once did.

Better education about hygiene and indoor plumbing improve BO and filth.

Subject verb agreement

I never said anywhere that headstart improved the smell of anyone. Better education about hygiene and indoor plumbing improves BO and filth.

None of my monologue was an endorsement of headstart. In fact, I don’t think I actually endorsed headstart anywhere on this blog. I said I worked in a head start program for a summer. My point in relating my experience was to point out that some sort of intervention program was needed for some kids before they could enter the world of school successfully.

From a practical point of view, the kindergarten teacher who has about 50 objectives to cover in a year with some 25 youngsters should not have to spend his/her time getting some kid to use the indoor bathroom correctly.

I have to say that I think poor children are much better off in school today than they were when I was a kid. I do not like to affix labels (liberal vs conservative) to things. That is a value judgement call and it varies from person to person. To me, a kid being given a lunch is not liberal. To you it might be.

I am also not going to speak in generalities. I think you hear about things and decide if they are good or bad without any first hand knowledge.

Rather than me defending headstart, how about you telling me specifically what is wrong with the program, detailing specifically how it has hurt poor kids.

As for cause and effect, I do not think schools have altered family structure. I do believe that family structure has altered schools, however. I think the break down in discipline has definitely had a negative impact on schools. I think parental attitude has had a tremendous negative effect on classroom environment.

Lets bite off a few of these issues at a time. I don’t multi-task very well. And lets try to avoid labels. They add no facts to the discussion.

There is a very timely editorial by Walter Williams in today’s Washington Times. It touches on a bit of what we are talking about here.

Can you say after all of the liberal social programs, and all of the spending has anything changed? Has the basic family structure been improved? Do poor kids still do poorly in school? The only thing that has changed is that people have become dependent on the Feds to fix every problem without first attempting to fix the problem on their own. I would argue children(poor or other wise) growing up in previous generations that did not have access to head start and other liberal social programs were much better off without them.

How does headstart improve the smell of someone?

I think you touched on a very important point when you mentioned what was the expected behavior of kids.

“What has changed in the last forty years that now makes it impossible for poor kids to do well in school?”

I am going to reflect on how things were back then, and the changes will be obvious.

I don’t think poor kids necessarily did well in school when I was a kid unless they had a great deal of self determination. I remember a few of the ‘poor’ kids. Hell, I might have even been one of them. My father was a teacher and coach and my mother stayed at home back when I was in elementary school. I lived in a fairly affluent university town in central Virginia.

I don’t really think anyone cared if poor kids did well or not. Unless some teacher took a poor kid under his/her wing out of the goodness of their heart, the poor kid was out of luck. If they misbehaved, they got put out of school for a while. If they didn’t do their work, they failed. If they were not real smart, they failed. I can remember sitting in 5th grade as a 10 year old with 16 year olds. If you were middle class, your parents got your a tutor to help you with your studies. I can recall being very fearful of failing, even though I got good grades. Some of the kids I started out in first grade with never finished school. They just dropped out.

If girls got pregnant, later on in school, they had to quit school. That ended their education. The middle class girls got sent away. The economically deprived girls just quit school. Many of them got married. You could not stay in school if you were pregnant.

There was no special education in public schools. Learning disabilities had not been discovered. If you were retarded, your parents either kept you at home or put you in an institution. That was the practice across the socio-economic board. If you were slow, you were slow. You failed. Most of the poor kids just dropped out as soon as they were allowed to.

I also went to school only with white children. The greatest diversity I ever was exposed to was a couple of Jewish kids, 1 Japanese boy, and some poor kids. I never knew any black children when I was a child growing up in the segregated south. I lived in town and our paths never crossed. Obviously this is where the biggest pockets of poverty were where I lived. I would say the same situation as I described for white kids existed for them in their schools. I don’t expect they had the textbooks and school materials we had although I have no way to verify this statement.

I can remember the poor kids didn’t get a hot lunch. They brought mayonaise and lard sandwiches from home. Some sat at the lunch table without lunch. Some of these kids also smelled bad. Kids held their noses and made fun of them.

One thing stands out in my mind in particular, and that is student behavior. If you misbehaved, the teacher thrashed you. Most parents seemed to not want their kids to misbehave because it was a social indicator. You got told at home not to act like poor white trash at school because it was a reflection on your parents.

So, what has changed since then? Desegregation, special ed for children ages 3-21 if they have a disability, free and reduced lunch, kids aren’t retained as often, teachers make more money commensurate with their professional status, student behavior and expectations from parents, no corporal punishment, no remedial classes, pregnant students, compulsory education to age 18…….

I am certain that someone else answering your question might have much different recollections than I do. I am also sure I have left out lots of things, but it is a start. I really think the overall answer is, basically no one cared if poor kids learned or not. They were second class citizens and you were directed not to act like them. Socio-economic awareness was much greater back then than it is now.

I really grew up as a middle class child, despite having an educator as a parent. I have had successful adult friends who were truly poor in their youth. They would tell a different story, I am sure, from a different perspective.

obviously, this sub-thread can take on a life of its own…

Check out the salary of the CEO of a company with that many employees in private industry, and get ready to add a zero or two.

Check out the salaries of superintendents in surrounding school systems. Is Dr. Walt’s salary that far off?

I am neither defending or condemning, just comparing and contrasting.

$200K salary? That is almost the salary of the President! Get real!

How about any time before the liberal social programs of the 60’s started?

Not a joke at all. Tell me why poor kids today need more hand holding from the Government then in previous generations?

Is that a joke?

If not, you really need to get out more.