Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Sharks in the Septic Tank -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Lane3 who wrote (73251)	8/25/2003 5:14:35 PM
From: The Philosopher	Respond to of 82486

Thanks for posting that. Even though you (unusually) overlooked giving the URL, I managed to find it and print it for my soon-to-be elementary teacher daughters. I think they will find it interesting, if discouraging.

To: Lane3 who wrote (73251)	8/25/2003 6:42:45 PM
From: The Philosopher	Respond to of 82486

I think it was you who posted the article from the Post about Classroom's Costly Lessons, though I can't find the post. I was -- well, amused in a wry way -- by the comment "School administrators are sympathetic, but say they are struggling to keep up with rising costs to equip their campuses with the latest technology and instructional materials to help meet the federal No Child Left Behind law." Does it not occur to the administrators that children who have no pens or pencils to write with will inevitably be left behind? Or no paper to write on? Or no stimulating exhibits in their classrooms? But I shouldn't get off on the "No Child Left Behind" thing. It may be a cute slogan, but it is a disasterous program. Just another reason why the federal government should butt totally out of elementary and high school education and leave it to the states and local districts. (Assuming one isn't a pure libertarian who thinks government shouldn't be involved in education at ANY level.)

To: Lane3 who wrote (73251)	8/25/2003 6:55:53 PM
From: one_less	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 82486

There is a long tradition of research in this area. Many child find and early intervention programs have been funded on the heals of such. "Head Start" is the most organized. Many efforts have been made to start intervention services earlier and earlier. It is mostly pretty sound. Early stimulation corolates with long term developmental gains. The suggestion here is to address the parents of at risk babies and to help them be better language stimulators. That part makes lots of sense. However, it worries me that this can be extended too far in a couple of ways. Probably not going to happen but somethings to watch for...1) the idea that the state is better at determining parenting needs than parents 2) babies are born into a caste...