At Obama’s website, one of the “issues” he addresses is education. Before the election, I posted several things about Obama’s views on education, which basically boil down to government-sponsored education for about twenty years starting from around age two.
I’m continuing to keep an eye on any changes the Obama administration might try to make in regards to the education of our young people. Sometimes it’s a matter of reading between the lines with the use of words or phrases that make a subtle difference in the meaning of a statement.
Regarding K-12 education in the United States, Obama’s website states:
- Improve K-12 schooling:
We will recruit an army of new teachers and develop innovative ways to reward teachers who are doing a great job, and we will reform No Child Left Behind so that we are supporting schools that need improvement, rather than punishing them.
I found the use of the phrase “army of new teachers” very interesting! That sounds kind of “Hitlerish,” in myopinion…
Then there is also the following to consider:
- Make sure our children are prepared for kindergarten:
One of the most critical times to influence learning in a child’s life is the period before he or she reaches kindergarten. We will invest in early childhood education, by dramatically expanding Head Start and other programs to ensure that all of our young children are ready to enter kindergarten.
I totally agree that one of the most critical times in a child’s life is during the preschool years, which is all the more reason why parents should have the option to send one parent to work and keep another one at home to train, love, and nurture preschool age children. The Obama administration has made it clear that any money will go toward expanding government sponsored programs like Head Start rather than making it financially feasible for mothers (or fathers) to stay at home with young children. After all, they take their view of a “village” very seriously and the village is obviously better equipped to handle the needs of young children better than untrained parents.
From the White House website (www.whitehouse.gov), you can read that the:
“President supports a seamless and comprehensive set of services and support for children, from birth through age 5.”
Is anyone paying attention to this stuff?!? “Seamless” means something that is consistent, flowing, or continuous. I’d say that’s exactly the definition the “president” has in mind. What does this mean for parents? This means that nurses will visit your home after you give birth to a child and then they’ll follow the progress of that child to preschool age, when you will be encouraged (or forced) to place your child in a government-sponsored preschool program. Think I’m crazy? Visit Russia, China or North Korea! They used to think it was paranoia, too.
Microsoft Encarta has a really good article about the history of the Soviet Union. Here are some portions from that article:
Many personal freedoms were drastically curtailed in the Soviet Union. …employees needed the permission of management to change jobs and could face criminal prosecution for tardiness or absenteeism. …Soviet citizens continued to be subject to surveillance and interference by the political police. They could join only associations approved by the CPSU. They could not set up businesses or sell their individual services, save for a few minor fields such as tutoring and baby-sitting. State-imposed regulations on personal mobility required residents to carry internal passports and to have them stamped by the police before changing locale; travel abroad was possible only with special authorization. Military service was compulsory and graduates from higher education had to accept work assignments, sometimes in undesirable locations, the first few years after acquiring their diplomas. (Sonya’s note: This sounds strangely familiar to Obama’s new college loan programs that eliminate college loan debt when graduates work in “underserved” areas. We’re not far away from mandatory service.)
Public services to some degree offset low incomes. A point of pride was the government’s free provision of health care, education, and social-security benefits. Even here, though, problems of quality, availability, and equity simmered beneath the surface.
The Soviet rulers saw comprehensive public education as necessary for purposes of economic and social modernization and political indoctrination. In 1918 they took over all private and parochial schools and colleges, abolished fees, and determined that all children ages 8 to 15 were to attend school full time. Compulsory study was gradually lengthened, so that by the 1980s most children remained in the classroom from ages 7 to 17. (Sonya’s note: This is the same thing that has happened in the United States over the past 100 years.)
Other than my comments, the above was cited from “Union of Soviet Socialist Republics,” Microsoft® Encarta® Online Encyclopedia 2009. http://encarta.msn.com © 1997-2009 Microsoft Corporation. All Rights Reserved.
Of course we could also look at the system of education in China, where:
“the Communists combined political propaganda with educational development.”
Citizens are still subjected to political propaganda and after being subjected to the views of the state repeatedly, many have stopped thinking for themselves and they simply do as they’re told. Consider the following:
“the state controls virtually all aspects of life. Access to housing, health care, and education depend on following state-mandated guidelines of proper social conduct, such as the one-child per family policy.”
People need to wake up.