I will not live in a nanny state

[anniefee]

ETA: this was a gut reaction post, extreme perspective, explained in the comments. don't hate me.

I got this in my email this morning, from the local homeschool group:

ID State rep proposes financial benefits for parents that teach kindergarten at home.

Read more... )

Comments

[ly_tin_wheedle]

I've heard it said that there is no American interest group more powerful and insidious than the educational-testing industry. People make up standards, build up tests around them, convince schools that those standards will make their kids better, and sell their tests, regardless of actual results. I've been reading this book on probability and statistics for a few days now, and this is one of his favorite examples to use when describing how statistical analysis can be twisted or misunderstood.

Anyway, yes, that is how I read the article -- the funding is available only to families that wish to enter their children into public school; the test is therefore applicable only to those families, not to those which have no intention of enrolling their children in the state's system.

I also don't see anything wrong with government support of the individual when done in moderation and with an eye to improving the individual's eventual self-sufficiency. Social safety nets are, I think, unfairly demonized by the conservative, those who have never needed it, and those who have created a system for others to struggle in (frequently all three cases may apply to the same person). For instance, what would you do if David lost his job and had no prospect of getting another one for some time?

Look at it this way: in some cases, having a parent stay home to teach kindergarten represents at least some lost income. The stipend might provide a little breathing room for those families.

Anyway, yes, a bit extreme. That's ok; food for thought.

As far as the 'freaky' issue ... eh. I mean either kids who call themselves "WARRIORS FOR CHRIST" or who don't believe in wearing pants.

[anniefee]

I believe it. The testing gets more and more ridiculous and it gets to the point where you're wondering if what they're testing is stuff that's even necessary anymore.

I don't see anything wrong with governmental support for those who need it and stated so in my post. I really, truly don't. I don't know if we'd go on welfare in order to make it through a period of unemployment (mostly because David works for the government and there are provisions made for lay-offs and stuff), but I am grateful to know it's available. I completely agree with your demonizing of safety nets statement. A lot of conservatives out there drive me nuts because they have no concept of the world beyond their backdoor. These are, incidentally, usually the same who are 'militant fecundity' supporters, anti-pants, tell their girls they don't need college, and think doctors and lawyers and CEOs are over-educated and why can't we go back to the apprenticeship method of aquiring a highly-technical skill like our great-grandfathers?

I do have to add that it's been proven faith-based charities and other non-profits do greater good than any governmental program, from rehab to food pantries to childcare.

Also, I don't like the WARRIORS FOR CHRIST mentality. Did you know there are more examples of love, peace, and 'creating' (artisans, beauty, etc.) than there are warrior images in the Bible? I forget where I read that, but I thought that was interesting. I do know that in the Old Testament, when God was setting up the tribes in the desert and dividing the Israelites into different groups of organization, the artisans and skilled workers were number one, after the priests, and before the armies. It seems to me that creating and crafting and beauty and art are more pleasing to the Lord than armies and battles are.

We like pants very much.