NationStates Jolt Archive

At least the book part. (http://www.rif.org/about/press/reinstate_rif.mspx)

"President Bush’s proposed budget calling for the elimination of Reading Is Fundamental’s (RIF) Inexpensive Book Distribution program would be devastating to the 4.6 million children and their families who receive free books and reading encouragement from RIF programs at nearly 20,000 locations throughout the U.S.

Now, so I don't get slammed for failing reading as well, while the title implies that RIF itself is being eliminated but in actuality it seems that 'only' RIF's Inexpensive Book Distribution that is being eliminated. There are other literacy programs that RIF offers. However, the Inexpensive Book Distribution program serves a specific need-

RIF would not be able to distribute 16 million books annually to the nation’s youngest and most at-risk children.
...
The U.S. Department of Education has shown that the number of books in a child’s home is a significant predictor of academic achievement.

Now I see the argument hinging on what things of this kind here generally do, either you think that literacy is important and programs like this help disadvantaged portions of the population get the leg up early in life that they need to bring themselves out of poverty and a step like this is callous at best and ultimately destructive in the long term or you believe that 'your hard earned money shouldn't be used to buy books for people too (insert insulting generalization or over simplification of their condition) to budget for books for their kids."

Obviously, I'm in the former camp. This is one is a top of the list kind of aid, because it provides the tools to break generational disadvantage by providing an early developmental tool. It's far from a band aid to stop bleeding but a steroid to stave off injury. The cost of giving some kids some books and having some of those kids succeed where they might not have otherwise far out weighs the cost of their lives later if they don't. It's got to be one of the soundest social investments there is.

And yes, the place already does rely on private donation (http://donate.rif.org/site/PageServer?pagename=landing_homepage) but without the support it's received since 1975 (RIF was founded in 1966, the program has been funded since 1975, from the letter) it doesn't have nearly the power to reach as many children as it has.

No question, that's my take. Give yours.

FINALLY *stabs out eyes, burns books*

No question, that's my take. Give yours.
Huh, well, as long as they're not getting left behind...

Huh, well, as long as they're not getting left behind...

Zing!

who wants to bet this won't feature at all in the US election even though education is a pretty big thing (well okay there are a few nuts who want to scrap public education but that policy is for the next election)

though really what happened to the library :confused:

who wants to bet this won't feature at all in the US election even though education is a pretty big thing (well okay there are a few nuts who want to scrap public education but that policy is for the next election)

though really what happened to the library :confused:
parents who don't buy books for their children usually don't visit the library.

I know some kids who didn't have any books in their house, zip, zero, nada. It was disturbing and sad. I asked their mom if it was okay if they had some of ours and she said "why?" she later told me she hadn't read a book since 1992 when she graduated high school.

If you want kids to read they need books.

parents who don't buy books for their children usually don't visit the library.

I know some kids who didn't have any books in their house, zip, zero, nada. It was disturbing and sad. I asked their mom if it was okay if they had some of ours and she said "why?" she later told me she hadn't read a book since 1992 when she graduated high school.

If you want kids to read they need books.

Add to that impoverished communities or mobile communities (the program serves migrant families and military families as well) don't often have access to libraries or the ones they do are also woefully under funded and understocked. I spent a lot of time at my local library as a kid in a slightly upper class suburb kind of town (technically a city, but small) and it was a hole in the wall. I think my friend now has more books than it did.

There are people in the south who only own one book: the phone book. They're die hard christians, they should at least get a bible.

Add to that impoverished communities or mobile communities (the program serves migrant families and military families as well) don't often have access to libraries or the ones they do are also woefully under funded and understocked. I spent a lot of time at my local library as a kid in a slightly upper class suburb kind of town (technically a city, but small) and it was a hole in the wall. I think my friend now has more books than it did.

parents in my neighborhood growing up would work 2 or even 3 jobs to support their families, they didn't have time or even transportation to take the kids anywhere, we were latchkey kids, we walked to school after our parents left for work and walked home and they still weren't home. I was lucky to be in the gifted program because once a week we would get a trip to the library via school bus. I was also lucky that my parents had about 1200 books in our house, on all kinds of subjects.

It seriously disturbs me that there are people who don't own any books.

Aarrg! This makes me want to hit something!

Reading has been on a downward slide for a while. The elimnation of phonics-based reading from most school curriculums as well as continued censorship of school libraries has gutted free reading(an important precursor to free thinking). Now this.

Information control is one step short of thought control. :(

I don't know why librarys should be censored, but I wish some of the books in the curriculum where a little more censored. As a younger person I was forced to read stories about molestation and murdering puppies. If those books where movies they would be R movies. For some reason people think it's less disturbing to read about it than it is to watch it on tv, but it isn't.

By the way I don't even know what phonics based reading is.

I don't know why librarys should be censored, but I wish some of the books in the curriculum where a little more censored. As a younger person I was forced to read stories about molestation and murdering puppies. If those books where movies they would be R movies. For some reason people think it's less disturbing to read about it than it is to watch it on tv, but it isn't.
What books were you reading?

By the way I don't even know what phonics based reading is.
http://plif.courageunfettered.com/archive/wc091.gif

Reading has been on a downward slide for a while. The elimnation of phonics-based reading from most school curriculums as well as continued censorship of school libraries has gutted free reading(an important precursor to free thinking). Now this.

Information control is one step short of thought control. :(

ah, non-phonics based reading education, it's made of fail.

ah, non-phonics based reading education, it's made of fail.
Continuation of a long trend of education bases that are made of fail.
Of course the very nature of the English language kicks phonics in the balls.

parents who don't buy books for their children usually don't visit the library.

I know some kids who didn't have any books in their house, zip, zero, nada. It was disturbing and sad. I asked their mom if it was okay if they had some of ours and she said "why?" she later told me she hadn't read a book since 1992 when she graduated high school.

If you want kids to read they need books.

Who would have guessed? :rolleyes:

true, there is a program called "reading from the roots" or something that they used when I was in school, so we learned a bit about word roots and phonics when we were learning to read so a lot of the ones that don't "follow the rules" were easy to figure out anyway.

All I remember is a blue whale puppet that taught me what sound 'wh' made...

not Bush.

Considering 'No Child Left Behind', is that at all surprising?

Continuation of a long trend of education bases that are made of fail.
Of course the very nature of the English language kicks phonics in the balls.

true, there is a program called "reading from the roots" or something that they used when I was in school, so we learned a bit about word roots and phonics when we were learning to read so a lot of the ones that don't "follow the rules" were easy to figure out anyway.

Who would have guessed? :rolleyes:

not Bush.

Bush doesnt care about poor people. We know this. Why is this shocking to anyone?

He still follows the foolish belief that "if you work hard you can become wealthy", which is a massive over simplification, ignores almost every factor in peoples lives and their status, and has been more or less proven false by sociologists...

Bush doesnt care about poor people. We know this. Why is this shocking to anyone?

'Shock' and 'anger' are not necessarily the same emotion.

'Shock' and 'anger' are not necessarily the same emotion.

True, but Ive honostly gotten past any anger now. Ive come to expect that moron to do things such as this, so its become a weary resignation and hope that he will to be blocked at every oppertunity by congress to make sure he does minimul damage in his last year.

At least the book part. (http://www.rif.org/about/press/reinstate_rif.mspx)



Now, so I don't get slammed for failing reading as well, while the title implies that RIF itself is being eliminated but in actuality it seems that 'only' RIF's Inexpensive Book Distribution that is being eliminated. There are other literacy programs that RIF offers. However, the Inexpensive Book Distribution program serves a specific need-



Now I see the argument hinging on what things of this kind here generally do, either you think that literacy is important and programs like this help disadvantaged portions of the population get the leg up early in life that they need to bring themselves out of poverty and a step like this is callous at best and ultimately destructive in the long term or you believe that 'your hard earned money shouldn't be used to buy books for people too (insert insulting generalization or over simplification of their condition) to budget for books for their kids."

Obviously, I'm in the former camp. This is one is a top of the list kind of aid, because it provides the tools to break generational disadvantage by providing an early developmental tool. It's far from a band aid to stop bleeding but a steroid to stave off injury. The cost of giving some kids some books and having some of those kids succeed where they might not have otherwise far out weighs the cost of their lives later if they don't. It's got to be one of the soundest social investments there is.

And yes, the place already does rely on private donation (http://donate.rif.org/site/PageServer?pagename=landing_homepage) but without the support it's received since 1975 (RIF was founded in 1966, the program has been funded since 1975, from the letter) it doesn't have nearly the power to reach as many children as it has.

No question, that's my take. Give yours.

It would be interesting to know if this program actually has accomplished anything. To have been in effect this long there should be some real stats showing those homes with program participation and those without...and there should be a way to gage if in fact it is accomplishing it's intent. While no one wants their pet programs cut (the article is hardly unbiased) is it not possible that with the advent of computers and technology in the classroom education monies are better spent on other things?

I personally am in favor of books and certainly feel that kids should have access to them. Our libraries are instumental in that, not to mention don't most public schools have libraries in them? Most rural communities have a book mobile program too where books from the public libraries are delivered each week. Is there really a need for this program or is it a program that has outlived it's usefulness in a day and age of technology? Does giving kids books make them read them? Especially in a household that doesn't encourage reading as it is? I have worked with plenty of poor people in my life and those that want books for their children have them...without a government program to fund them.

"This is an excellent first step, but it's not going far enough!" shouts Miranda Trax, chairperson of right-wing focus group Parents for the Elimination of Nationally Instituted Schools. "Government should abolish funding for public education! Have you ever been inside a public school? They're dirty, full of graffiti and drugs, and the students are largely juvenile delinquents who go around after school mugging old ladies and defacing public property! By contrast, private schools have much better equipment and books, are far cleaner, and the students are much better behaved and get higher grades. It stands to reason that if we abolished public schools, children would receive a far better education! 'Course some people might not be able to afford it, but they should have gotten a paying job while they still could!"

....

I think I've been playing too much NS lately.
Anyway, I agree with CToaN.

It would be interesting to know if this program actually has accomplished anything. To have been in effect this long there should be some real stats showing those homes with program participation and those without...and there should be a way to gage if in fact it is accomplishing it's intent. While no one wants their pet programs cut (the article is hardly unbiased) is it not possible that with the advent of computers and technology in the classroom education monies are better spent on other things?

I personally am in favor of books and certainly feel that kids should have access to them. Our libraries are instumental in that, not to mention don't most public schools have libraries in them? Most rural communities have a book mobile program too where books from the public libraries are delivered each week. Is there really a need for this program or is it a program that has outlived it's usefulness in a day and age of technology? Does giving kids books make them read them? Especially in a household that doesn't encourage reading as it is? I have worked with plenty of poor people in my life and those that want books for their children have them...without a government program to fund them.

Well, (http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/19/arts/19nea.html?_r=2&oref=slogin&oref=slogin)
In seeking to detail the consequences of a decline in reading, the study showed that reading appeared to correlate with other academic achievement. In examining the average 2005 math scores of 12th graders who lived in homes with fewer than 10 books, an analysis of federal Education Department statistics found that those students scored much lower than those who lived in homes with more than 100 books. Although some of those results could be attributed to income gaps, Mr. Iyengar noted that students who lived in homes with more than 100 books but whose parents only completed high school scored higher on math tests than those students whose parents held college degrees (and were therefore likely to earn higher incomes) but who lived in homes with fewer than 10 books.
There was an earlier study that was criticized-
Three years ago “Reading at Risk,” which was based on a study by the Census Bureau in 2002, provoked a debate among academics, publishers and others, some of whom argued that the report defined reading too narrowly by focusing on fiction, poetry and drama. Others argued that there had not been as much of a decline in reading as the report suggested.
but then-
This time the endowment did not limit its analysis to so-called literary reading. It selected studies that asked questions about “reading for fun” or “time spent reading for pleasure,” saying that this could refer to a range of reading materials.

“It’s no longer reasonable to debate whether the problem exists,” said Sunil Iyengar, director of research and analysis for the endowment. “Let’s not nitpick or wrangle over to what extent is reading in decline.”

In an interview Mr. Gioia said that the statistics could not explain why reading had declined, but he pointed to several commonly accepted culprits, including the proliferation of digital diversions on the Internet and other gadgets, and the failure of schools and colleges to develop a culture of daily reading habits. In addition, Mr. Gioia said, “we live in a society where the media does not recognize, celebrate or discuss reading, literature and authors.”

Certainly cutting off access to underprivileged children doesn't help.

That was early in the Google search.

They're taking away RIF? RIF benefits all levels of students.
I remember RIF fondly; it got me through elementary school when I was bored all the time because the work was so easy. I would grab books that were high-school level and devour them. Ah, the good old days ...
But the point is, if you take away RIF, you will not only leave many children behind (because they no longer have access to books, period), but you will abandon others who are above the level of their classmates.

Oh, wait, No Child Left Behind did that already. Never mind. :rolleyes:

Well, (http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/19/arts/19nea.html?_r=2&oref=slogin&oref=slogin)

There was an earlier study that was criticized-

but then-

Certainly cutting off access to underprivileged children doesn't help.

That was early in the Google search.

That is what I was wondering to an extent. I know that a few years back, I worked with underpriviledged youth in my county and we encouraged parents to encourage their children to read. But it wasn't necessarily books, it also included magazines, newspapers, even gaming manuals. We advised parents to support reading through their child's hobbies or things they loved. For instance if a boy was interested in baseball, sport magazines would be a good choice. You should not limit a child to having to read books. Some people just are not fond of books and many kids with ADD or ADHA will not complete a book where they will an article.

Things like that is what makes me question the real value of this particular program. It is hard enough in a classroom to get assigned books read by kids, especially in homes where reading is not a parental priority. But there are other sources of reading materials that can and should be encouraged. Also there are free summer reading programs and so forth open to kids. All of these things were available in a poverty county, all through the public library.

I am just not convinced that giving away books is an efficient way to encourage reading in underpriviledged children. I would like to know more about the reason it was cut, and there is bound to be a reason.

ah, non-phonics based reading education, it's made of fail.

I don't know about that. I was reading before I ever got to school. The decided that I had to learn it the phonics way because I wasn't doing it "right" otherwise (despite the fact that I was reading Tolkine and C.S. Lewis in kindergarden). Acording to my mother my spelling used to be great, then came fucking phonics and there went my spelling while my reading remained at the same high level it was alwayse at.

That is what I was wondering to an extent. I know that a few years back, I worked with underpriviledged youth in my county and we encouraged parents to encourage their children to read. But it wasn't necessarily books, it also included magazines, newspapers, even gaming manuals. We advised parents to support reading through their child's hobbies or things they loved. For instance if a boy was interested in baseball, sport magazines would be a good choice. You should not limit a child to having to read books. Some people just are not fond of books and many kids with ADD or ADHA will not complete a book where they will an article.

Things like that is what makes me question the real value of this particular program. It is hard enough in a classroom to get assigned books read by kids, especially in homes where reading is not a parental priority. But there are other sources of reading materials that can and should be encouraged. Also there are free summer reading programs and so forth open to kids. All of these things were available in a poverty county, all through the public library.

I am just not convinced that giving away books is an efficient way to encourage reading in underpriviledged children. I would like to know more about the reason it was cut, and there is bound to be a reason.
Did you miss this part:
Although some of those results could be attributed to income gaps, Mr. Iyengar noted that students who lived in homes with more than 100 books but whose parents only completed high school scored higher on math tests than those students whose parents held college degrees (and were therefore likely to earn higher incomes) but who lived in homes with fewer than 10 books.

What a crock of shit. Methinks Bush is only doing this because he figures, if he can't read*, no one else should be able to, either.




*No, picture books aimed at 1-2 year olds do not count.

Who needs reading? The next Final Fantasy game should have no scrolling text dialogue boxes.:D

I learned to read almost on my own because I wanted to know what that little yellow-haired kid and his tiger were doing every Sunday in the Paper. Calvin and Hobbes were what made me want to read.

Public education has been failing for decades. Isn't it interesting that a (allegedly) Republican (allegedly) President spent more federal money on education than any president before, and an (allegedly) Republican-controlled congess passed it, and we're STILL not spending enough?

Let the states have full educational control and get the Feds out of it. Give kids interesting books instead of requiring them to read the latest dumbed-down garbage the publishers push. When I went to public school (2nd & 4th grades) I was bored to death by all but two or three of the stories we read in class. Of course, I was reading Sherlock Holmes and Narnia by that time, and many of my classmates would have had trouble with "Dick and Jane".

I don't know about that. I was reading before I ever got to school. The decided that I had to learn it the phonics way because I wasn't doing it "right" otherwise (despite the fact that I was reading Tolkine and C.S. Lewis in kindergarden). Acording to my mother my spelling used to be great, then came fucking phonics and there went my spelling while my reading remained at the same high level it was alwayse at.

if you sound out words when you read, you are reading phonetically. If you are independently literate, there is a good chance you read phonetically. I also went into Kindergarten reading (mostly Huck Finn and such, I just loved Clemens) and when I went they were using "whole language" which involved memorizing all the words that would be used in the stories that week, being a better reader than the rest of the class I was asked to help some of the other children, I got in trouble for showing my friend how to sound things out, the teacher said "we don't do that here" and I said "what happens when she gets to a word she doesn't know?" and she said "just tell her, she'll have to memorize it"

this isn't a good set up for reading on your own.

It's far from a band aid to stop bleeding but a steroid to stave off injury.

...So what your saying is we need to give children steroids! :D

...So what your saying is we need to give children steroids! :D

Clearly.





I can't believe no one called me on the fact that steroids do nothing of the sort. I think I changed metaphors mid-stream or something.

Who needs reading? The next Final Fantasy game should have no scrolling text dialogue boxes.:D

I learned to read almost on my own because I wanted to know what that little yellow-haired kid and his tiger were doing every Sunday in the Paper. Calvin and Hobbes were what made me want to read.

Public education has been failing for decades. Isn't it interesting that a (allegedly) Republican (allegedly) President spent more federal money on education than any president before, and an (allegedly) Republican-controlled congess passed it, and we're STILL not spending enough?
Well, they're not asking for more money, the program that has been funded since 1975 is being cut.

Let the states have full educational control and get the Feds out of it. Give kids interesting books instead of requiring them to read the latest dumbed-down garbage the publishers push. When I went to public school (2nd & 4th grades) I was bored to death by all but two or three of the stories we read in class. Of course, I was reading Sherlock Holmes and Narnia by that time, and many of my classmates would have had trouble with "Dick and Jane".
RIF isn't public schools, it's a literacy program. It has nothing to do with required reading or English curriculum, it's an extra-curricular program to encourage reading and literacy.

though really what happened to the library :confused:

The librarys books are nasty as hell. that is what happened, well that and that hobos now sleep there all day. onetime I got a library book with blood, semen, and boogers in it, and i dont even live in an urban area. i live in suburbia, which sucks pretty hard.:rolleyes:

Let the states have full educational control and get the Feds out of it. Give kids interesting books

I'm sorry but won't that mean a few states will have kids reading about intelligent design/some dick killing Indians over and over?

I was bored to death by all but two or three of the stories we read in class. Of course, I was reading Sherlock Holmes and Narnia by that time, and many of my classmates would have had trouble with "Dick and Jane".

but you wasn't bored of Sherlock Homes and Narnia? :p

The librarys books are nasty as hell. that is what happened, well that and that hobos now sleep there all day. onetime I got a library book with blood, semen, and boogers in it, and i dont even live in an urban area. i live in suburbia, which sucks pretty hard.:rolleyes:

you should of took the book back and demanded a replacement maybe

if you sound out words when you read, you are reading phonetically. If you are independently literate, there is a good chance you read phonetically. I also went into Kindergarten reading (mostly Huck Finn and such, I just loved Clemens) and when I went they were using "whole language" which involved memorizing all the words that would be used in the stories that week, being a better reader than the rest of the class I was asked to help some of the other children, I got in trouble for showing my friend how to sound things out, the teacher said "we don't do that here" and I said "what happens when she gets to a word she doesn't know?" and she said "just tell her, she'll have to memorize it"

this isn't a good set up for reading on your own.

All I know is I used to be able to spell as well as I could read, then I got taught phoinics in the state sanctioned way and my spelling went to shit.

All I know is I used to be able to spell as well as I could read, then I got taught phoinics in the state sanctioned way and my spelling went to shit.

Spell check has made me a lazier speller, especially now that my mis-spelled words are underlined so I don't have to run a spell check anymore.

Sometimes my spelling is so bad if you were to 'hear' my typing it would be like Porky Pig, I'd stutter on one word for a while and then switch to a homonym.

Well, they're not asking for more money, the program that has been funded since 1975 is being cut.

RIF isn't public schools, it's a literacy program. It has nothing to do with required reading or English curriculum, it's an extra-curricular program to encourage reading and literacy.

That you need to explain this this late into the thread says something about reading comprehension.... ;)

There are people in the south who only own one book: the phone book. They're die hard christians, they should at least get a bible.

Who are you talking about? Some friends of yours? Someone you saw on the news? People you thought up but are pretty sure exist?

isnt literacy MRS bush's pet project?

maybe the first couple is having a fight.

I am just not convinced that giving away books is an efficient way to encourage reading in underpriviledged children. I would like to know more about the reason it was cut, and there is bound to be a reason.

Actually it does. I know a gal who works with a small group that does it and she says the kids are always excited when new books appear.

As to why it was cut? The shrub has his personal war to pay for......

That you need to explain this this late into the thread says something about reading comprehension.... ;)
True enough.
isnt literacy MRS bush's pet project?

maybe the first couple is having a fight.
Zing!
Actually it does. I know a gal who works with a small group that does it and she says the kids are always excited when new books appear.

As to why it was cut? The shrub has his personal war to pay for......
Well, you have to have priorities...

It would be interesting to know if this program actually has accomplished anything. To have been in effect this long there should be some real stats showing those homes with program participation and those without...and there should be a way to gage if in fact it is accomplishing it's intent. While no one wants their pet programs cut (the article is hardly unbiased) is it not possible that with the advent of computers and technology in the classroom education monies are better spent on other things?

Look at it this way: are there any downsides, other than the cost?

It's easy to say "spend it on other things" but no so easy to think of something with such potential for good influence on a kid's life, without any downside.

I'm a big fan of the One Laptop Per Child program, if it's done wholeheartedly (there has to be so many of them that the black market for stolen ones is saturated, and they're essentially unsaleable). But that's a far, far bigger monetary investment, and it isn't too hard to think of downsides, i.e. ways it could have a negative impact on early education.

So, would you spend it on computers so the kids can read Wikipedia? (They won't necessarily, and a computer costs a lot more than a book.) Or subsidize websites to make educational material, or make a system of endorsing websites for their educational value? Or spend it on children's television, also very expensive?

The only thing you can do with a book is read it. Therefore, no downside.

We should spend more on early education, lots more. But it is always hard to reach kids who grow up in an environment which is hostile to education (basically, parents who hated school themselves.)

Books put the choice right there with the kid. If they don't get into it they don't, tough luck. But if you ever had a book you just loved as a kid, you know what a personal thing it is, just you and the book. It's like a secret world. If this program succeeds in just one percent of kids who have access to the books, it's money well spent.

I acknowledge the rest of your post, and don't entirely disagree. I just wanted to say that.

The only thing you can do with a book is read it. Therefore, no downside.
Oh, aye? (http://search.cpsc.gov/query.html?col=pubweb&qt=books&x=0&y=0)
It looks like there is something else a child can do with a book: KILL THEMSELVES!! Do you want to see the floors of our elementary school classrooms and after-school daycares littered with bodies? Well, I don't, and I'm sure the janitor doesn't, either.
Don't be fooled by the relentless pro-book propaganda out there: books are dangerous. They must be taken off the streets, by taking them off our shelves and throwing them into the streets. Then setting them on fire.

Oh, aye? (http://search.cpsc.gov/query.html?col=pubweb&qt=books&x=0&y=0)
I can't believe you went and looked that up.

Who needs reading? The next Final Fantasy game should have no scrolling text dialogue boxes.:D



My brother insists that my nephew reads so well because he makes him read the scrolling text on the video games. (his uncle is apparently still wiling to abuse pronoun agreement) I didn't know he was reading until I left my computer out and he started sifting through my iTunes and asked, "Uncle ****, what's 'surf music?'" He didn't take 'awesome' for an answer...

My brother insists that my nephew reads so well because he makes him read the scrolling text on the video games. (his uncle is apparently still wiling to abuse pronoun agreement) I didn't know he was reading until I left my computer out and he started sifting through my iTunes and asked, "Uncle ****, what's 'surf music?'" He didn't take 'awesome' for an answer...

my son desperately wanted to learn to read so that he could read the text in nintendo games all by himself.

he had books from the time he was a baby but it was the video games that really got him wanting to read by himself.

my son desperately wanted to learn to read so that he could read the text in nintendo games all by himself.

he had books from the time he was a baby but it was the video games that really got him wanting to read by himself.
when I have a headache I mute the TV and turn on the closed captioning, the kids are fine with this since they read but one of their cousins gets really pissed off "I can't read it and watch TV at the same time!" his mom can't either though, I don't really see what's so hard about it... unless you can't read.

We have closed captioning on all the time, I like it.

I apparently learned to read by looking at dinosaur names.

I have no idea where my son learned to read. He is almost six, and reads at a nearly (if not) high school level... I'll never understand it. I did not teach him, he just learned it on his own. Amazing stuff. Incredibly intelligent.

Oh, aye? (http://search.cpsc.gov/query.html?col=pubweb&qt=books&x=0&y=0)
It looks like there is something else a child can do with a book: KILL THEMSELVES!! Do you want to see the floors of our elementary school classrooms and after-school daycares littered with bodies? Well, I don't, and I'm sure the janitor doesn't, either.
Don't be fooled by the relentless pro-book propaganda out there: books are dangerous. They must be taken off the streets, by taking them off our shelves and throwing them into the streets. Then setting them on fire.

That's crazy. You'd have to go out into the street and do that ... why not get them well alight with some lighter fluid, then throw them into the street?

After checking for passing children, of course.

So much for "no child left behind", huh...?

So much for "no child left behind", huh...?

No, no this is to help 'No Child Left Behind', see if they're carrying these books they'll be slowed down and thusly left behind. :p

I think i learned to read by reading puddle lane books.
Didn't really get into it until i read Terry Pratchett.
I wonder what would happen if all current day religious books and information were lost/destroyed?

Public education has been failing for decades. Isn't it interesting that a (allegedly) Republican (allegedly) President spent more federal money on education than any president before, and an (allegedly) Republican-controlled congess passed it, and we're STILL not spending enough?
Money is not the only root of the problem...not by a long shot. And the ammount being spent by the feds still only forms about 8% of a schools budget.

Let the states have full educational control and get the Feds out of it. States do have full control. The feds can provide additional money through coersion (if you don't meet these regulations, you don't get the attached funds), but they cannot require states to meet any requirements.

RIF would not be able to distribute 16 million books annually to the nation’s youngest and most at-risk children.
...
The U.S. Department of Education has shown that the number of books in a child’s home is a significant predictor of academic achievement.

While I fully support education, and improving the availability of books to underprivileged households, I'm not sold on the logic here. I feel like there's some sort of fallacious thinking going on with the Department of Education on this statistics. I'd suspect that the reason why the number of books in a child's home is significant has more to do with the interests and desires of the parents, rather than the mere presence of books. This might seem to be a cum hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy, if I'm not mistaken.

He still follows the foolish belief that "if you work hard you can become wealthy", which is a massive over simplification, ignores almost every factor in peoples lives and their status, and has been more or less proven false by sociologists...
Actually, sociologists couldn't prove to you that two times one equals two. They'd tell you that it's all relative and depends on something else which unfortunately they can't quantify or predict.

Of course you can become wealthy if you work hard. But you need tools, because work all by itself is no good. Being able to read properly is one such tool (and a rather important one at that), so even from a capitalist view reducing the accessibility of books to little kids is perhaps not a great idea. We can argue about the funding for it, but Bush knows perfectly well that if the government doesn't pay for it, in the current US system no one will.

While I fully support education, and improving the availability of books to underprivileged households, I'm not sold on the logic here. I feel like there's some sort of fallacious thinking going on with the Department of Education on this statistics. I'd suspect that the reason why the number of books in a child's home is significant has more to do with the interests and desires of the parents, rather than the mere presence of books. This might seem to be a cum hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy, if I'm not mistaken.

you need to read freakonomics.

the more books in a child's home the more likely he is to read REGARDLESS of whether or not the parents read those books.

My mom lost her job because of shit like this. She helped distribute books to poor families and teach teachers how to encourage reading. She was on a grant and it ended. The Bush Admin is pushing technology as the way, but poor people don't have access to it as easily as they would with books. Library computers are shit slow, so that's obviously not a solution.