Kerry calls for federal after-school program

[mrbowler]

http://custom.marketwatch.com/custom/myway-com/news-story.asp?guid={0AC110EA-3CF6-40F8-90FB-6C62B82E5617}

WASHINGTON (CBS.MW) -- Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry called on Wednesday for an expanded program that would provide after-school care into the early evenings and offer working parents a child-care tax credit.

Kerry said he would increase funding for afterschool programs to $2.5 billion by 2007, up from $1 billion currently. It would be paid for by repealing the portion of the Bush administration's tax cuts that apply to Americans earning more than $200,000 a year. The expanded child credit would cost around $20 billion over 10 years, which the campaign said would be paid for by closing corporate tax shelters.

"All across this country there are families who would like to enroll their kids in after-school and child care programs, but they can't because budgets are tight. And for this administration in Washington, after school is just an afterthought," Kerry said at a roundtable discussion in Columbus, Ohio.

President Bush's reelection campaign accused Kerry of hypocrisy, citing his votes against Republican-backed tax cut proposals, which included measures to end the "marriage penalty" paid by married couples earning less than $50,000 a year and the expanded, $1,000 per child tax credit.

"It's tough for him to claim that he understands middle-class issues, when he repeatedly votes to tax the middle class more and tries to talk down the economy with his pessimism and misery," said Steve Schmidt, a Bush campaign spokesman.

Kerry has advocated keeping the child tax credit while criticizing other elements of the Bush tax cuts.

The Democratic senator's campaign said the plan would increase the child-care tax credit by $800 for a typical middle-class family with two children in child care. Kerry would also create a program entitled "School's Open 'Til 6", expanding after-school care.

Meanwhile, House Democrats unveiled an election-year jobs plan Wednesday, seeking to amplify Kerry's assertion that President Bush has failed to protect American workers whose jobs have been shifted overseas.

The plan would offer tax credits to encourage firms to keep jobs in the United States and would also increase spending on highways and other infrastructure, research and development, job training and education initiatives at a total cost of $125 billion over the next decade. The cost would be offset by the repeal of tax breaks that Democrats said encourage firms to ship jobs overseas.

"Americans know trade is good for our economy when we export American goods, not when we export American jobs," said House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif.

The Bush campaign and Republican lawmakers contend that Kerry and his party's allies are attempting to peddle an unduly pessimistic view of the economy, despite strong economic growth, a turnaround in monthly job creation figures and other positive economic data.

The House Democrats' program would give businesses a $3,000 tax credit for each U.S.-based job created by industries that have been affected by outsourcing.

[Twinplets]

How about a tax credit for stay-at-home parents so parents who would like to be able to stay home to raise their children, but can't afford to lose the extra income, would be able to? More stay-at-home parents would mean fewer kids needing the after-school care, and probably open up more jobs for people currently unemployed because of the extra people leaving the work force. With all sorts of studies showing that in general, day-care kids have more problems than kids with stay-at-home parents, shouldn't this be investigated?

[prism68]

Originally Posted by Twinplets

How about a tax credit for stay-at-home parents so parents who would like to be able to stay home to raise their children, but can't afford to lose the extra income, would be able to? More stay-at-home parents would mean fewer kids needing the after-school care, and probably open up more jobs for people currently unemployed because of the extra people leaving the work force. With all sorts of studies showing that in general, day-care kids have more problems than kids with stay-at-home parents, shouldn't this be investigated?

Wouldn't THAT be awesome? How radical is that approach; let men earn enough to function as breadwinners in society so women can come back home and raise their families. There would be a huge difference in the rate of delinquency, I imagine, and all the costs that go with it.
(Before any feminists go wild, I mean this only in the case of women who CHOOSE to stay home).

Besides, when I first read this I thought, "Great, just what our kids need; more gov't involvment"
Our school system here is determined to have our kids from dawn to dusk, it seems. They have moved ALL the schools to one location (isn't THAT a nice thought; if terrorists wanted to hit us, there are all our kids in one section of town). So now kids are bussed for HOURS; ridiculous. Plus they have after-school programs until 6:30 every evening. Now they have started preschool programs for birth-3 year olds!

I can't stand it; having taught in these schools and knowing what a bastion of left-wing ideology they are peddling.
Brainwashing, that's what I'd call it.

[bobbcat]

Well said, Angela.

[mayor]

Tax credit, good.
Expanding government program, baaaaaad.

Get the kids OUT of those schools so they have a chance to learn!!!

Mayor

[mrbowler]

Originally Posted by Twinplets

How about a tax credit for stay-at-home parents so parents who would like to be able to stay home to raise their children, but can't afford to lose the extra income, would be able to? More stay-at-home parents would mean fewer kids needing the after-school care, and probably open up more jobs for people currently unemployed because of the extra people leaving the work force. With all sorts of studies showing that in general, day-care kids have more problems than kids with stay-at-home parents, shouldn't this be investigated?

I would assume that more stay-at-home parents are woman...many reason's why more woman entered the workforce-choice,necessity, etc. Actually believe that one main reason is that the businesses wanted it. It was a way to get more labor into the american workforce-which allowed them to keep wages down, and also actually created a bonus by creating jobs in the child care aspects. These businesses that received the benefits-are able to pass the costs of it's worker's having to spend money on daycare(child care).

[mayfly]

I want a double tax credit, one for being stay at home,
and one for schooling my kids!

[pandybat]

Originally Posted by mayor

Tax credit, good.
Expanding government program, baaaaaad.

Get the kids OUT of those schools so they have a chance to learn!!!

Mayor

Not everyone has the know-how to homeschool their kids or can afford to send their kids to private school. For those people, there is no choice.

[mayor]

Originally Posted by pandybat

Not everyone has the know-how to homeschool their kids or can afford to send their kids to private school. For those people, there is no choice.

Thus, school vouchers. This would empower parents of all income brackets to make the best choice for their children, force schools to compete (thus cut out the bad teachers) and increase educational standards.

It's a very simple principal. You encourage competition in the free marketplace, thereby separating the wheat from the chaff. Basics of capitalism. Only the strong survive. And it works.

Mayor

[bobbcat]

Thus, school vouchers.

Overall I agree with your post above, but I have qualms about the school voucher in that anytime the gov't gets involved with funding something, it has a habit of wanting to take control as well. The last thing private schools need is gov't interference with the way they do things.

[mrbowler]

Originally Posted by pandybat

Not everyone has the know-how to homeschool their kids or can afford to send their kids to private school. For those people, there is no choice.

Sandy-Do parents that do homeschooling have to take tests to prove that they are competent in all areas to teach their kid's ?

I've always wondered... has the public school system structurally changed from earlier days-40's, 50's. What made the system work well during these year's ?

[mrbowler]

Originally Posted by mayor

Thus, school vouchers. This would empower parents of all income brackets to make the best choice for their children, force schools to compete (thus cut out the bad teachers) and increase educational standards.

It's a very simple principal. You encourage competition in the free marketplace, thereby separating the wheat from the chaff. Basics of capitalism. Only the strong survive. And it works.

Mayor

This article has some aspect's in which maybe we haven't considered.

[Only registered and activated users can see links. Either login above or Register Now]

[prism68]

Originally Posted by mrbowler

Sandy-Do parents that do homeschooling have to take tests to prove that they are competent in all areas to teach their kid's ?

I've always wondered... has the public school system structurally changed from earlier days-40's, 50's. What made the system work well during these year's ?

I'm not Sandy, but home schooling laws are different in each state. For instance, in GA, I have to: turn in monthly attendance forms, keep records for 3 years, test my kids on a standardized test every 3 years, and have at least a G.E.D.. In order to teach other children in my home (like I do), I have to have a 4-yr. degree.
Some states have more restrictive and some less restrictive. For instance, I know there are some states where you have to turn in lesson plans every week.
This site has some good info. on the different state laws:
[Only registered and activated users can see links. Either login above or Register Now]

As for the second part of your question, I say absolutely YES the schools are radically different from the 50's.
What made it work well then, IMHO:

* Mothers were more likely to be at home, so children got breakfast at home, were met after school by mom- who probably provided homework assistance.

* Dads were more likely to be there period. There were less 'non-traditional' families.

* Teachers were allowed to use discipline in the schools and remove unruly students from the equation.

* Parents were likely to support the teacher instead of the student in a dispute.

* Students were less likely to be on a dozen medications that interfered with their ability to learn.

* Standards were higher, academically and otherwise.

* Students were taught the basics; now it is all this social skill and self-esteem nonsense.

Geez, I guess I'll stop now
My 2 cents or so.

[mrbowler]

Originally Posted by prism68

I'm not Sandy, but home schooling laws are different in each state. For instance, in GA, I have to: turn in monthly attendance forms, keep records for 3 years, test my kids on a standardized test every 3 years, and have at least a G.E.D.. In order to teach other children in my home (like I do), I have to have a 4-yr. degree.
Some states have more restrictive and some less restrictive. For instance, I know there are some states where you have to turn in lesson plans every week.
This site has some good info. on the different state laws:
[Only registered and activated users can see links. Either login above or Register Now]

As for the second part of your question, I say absolutely YES the schools are radically different from the 50's.
What made it work well then, IMHO:

* Mothers were more likely to be at home, so children got breakfast at home, were met after school by mom- who probably provided homework assistance.

* Dads were more likely to be there period. There were less 'non-traditional' families.

* Teachers were allowed to use discipline in the schools and remove unruly students from the equation.

* Parents were likely to support the teacher instead of the student in a dispute.

* Students were less likely to be on a dozen medications that interfered with their ability to learn.

* Standards were higher, academically and otherwise.

* Students were taught the basics; now it is all this social skill and self-esteem nonsense.

Geez, I guess I'll stop now
My 2 cents or so.

Thank You for the Url-I'll have to take a peak You would think that they need to create a more uniform standard. Also a more frequent testing...it doesn't seem as in your case that
you are required to perform a test to see if you are qualified? Is that true? Besides having a GED/College Degree. All of the problems that you have described in your opinion are not financial problems-so I wonder whether school vouchers will help.

BTW-I agree with some of your thought's. Although I do believe a less traditional family can provide proper support to achieve success also.

[prism68]

Originally Posted by mrbowler

...
BTW-I agree with some of your thought's. Although I do believe a less traditional family can provide proper support to achieve success also.

Oh I agree, I've seen it happen.
I'm just saying that a one-parent household has a lot more demands on it. The single parent is pulled in so many directions. This makes things like helping with homework more difficult; not impossible. Also, that whole latch-key kid thing applies here.

As far as whether I am qualified to teach, I have a Master's degree in Education and am certified (T-5) for grades PreK-12.
It really gets kind of inane when people start worrying so much about home school 'qualifications' because home schoolers consistently outperform public schooled children in testing, etc..

The things I listed are not financial, and I am always saying throwing money at schools is NOT the answer. However, vouchers WILL help because they will let people send their children to schools that are making better use of the resources they have.

For instance, my daughter's 'zoned' school has been rated "NI = Needs Improvement" for the past 6 yrs. or so. They get extra federal money and all these programs that have accomplished nothing.
After one year at home with me, she improved by about 3 grade levels in Math and 5 in Reading. That is why the whole qualifications thing gets kind of comical to me. Heck I had a student in my class once (1st grader) who had spent TWO YEARS in Kdg. and still not learned her ABC's. She was in the same teacher's room both years. This teacher is still gainfully employed in our school system, btw.

So, moral of story- there is way too much wrong in public schools to think there is ANY quick fix. But I think vouchers are in order to give kids what they need NOW.
The article you referenced basically said if kids used vouchers, then public schools would be starved for money and on and on about how bad it would be for the BAD SCHOOLS. Well I'd be much more concerned about my child's education than the effect on a school that wasn't making the grade anyway.