Re: |[IRL] Didn't we already win this fight?


"David Klassen" <klassen@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message news:321ce8ce-5740-49ee-aaa6-2e1ff2787fbb@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
On Nov 20, 12:17 pm, "Stanley Rexwinkle" <hahnt...@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
"David Klassen" <klas...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message

> It's pretty hard to spend time you don't have. Parents working > double-shits
> to make ends meet don't have time to make sure their kids are doing
> their homework. Hungry kids don't learn.

most public schools I know are just monitors of what staff views as
criminals. testing is a a nusance they put up with from what they feel are
stupid snot nosed brats so they can collect a salary for a lousy job done.

Your definition of "most" seems stuck in hyperbole mode.


say 95%

> [sarcasm]
> But if you're going to give them the money to do this (so they can quit
> one, or more jobs in the household) you're just disincentivizing them
> to earn their living and providing their children with a real life > example
> of just how cushy life on the dole can be!
> [/sarcasm]

not all families have both parents work double shifts. those that do have

No. Many of them (in under-performing school districts) have only one
parent working double shifts---and no other parent.


they should have stopped at one kid unless the partner proved to be reliable or they should have requested tubes tied.

the time should not be forced to put their kids in public schools just to
help out those working double shifts and those who just want free
babysitters.

The point of ALL schools is to educate; that some folks in inner-city
schools have become despondent over the size of the task they
face, with diminishing funds, is not an indictment of those people,
or even that school, but of the funding system itself. And a good
part
of those lacking funds are in social services.

the public schools are simply a lost cause. the more money you throw in the pit, the more you waste.


> Because it isn't the child's fault their parent(s) suck? Because
> we feel that we really are our brothers' keeper? Altruism?

altruism is a myth.

Sorry to hear you believe that. I look at it as an aspiration.


I learned to be a realist.

parents are liable for their kids. if they can not or

We are *all* liable for each other. Not just the kids.

their parents are 80% more liable. they are 100% liable for time spent with kid. that is nobody else's responsibility but the parents or who they can muster up to do it - and no one need be forced to spend time on someone else's kid. funding could be spent on supplies for homeschooling by the parent instead of wasting on public education. again they offer no social program other the model base on jail [complete with metal detectors].

I am liable time wise only for myself and those I choose to spend it on.


will not do so then they should not have had them. while abortion is legal,
they have no excuse for pumping out an unwanted kid that is ignored and

Define "unwanted". I'm sure there are folks in this world that
would define my birth as unwanted to them...


if their parents did not plan to have them and cannot adequately support them, they are not wanted. they could have been aborted. not doing so even for some religious reason puts all burden on said parents. if they use faith as an excuse to pump kids out, then they and their church alone are responsible for said kids forever. if you don't want kids, there is no legitimate excuse. using religion as an excuse is a cop out. you chose not to abort or not use contraception while you breed like rabbits, you assume full responsibility for anything that falls out as a result without burdening the rest of us with your poor planning or morality mental retard status. it' so simple they don't have to have the kids. they can tie the tubes early.

neglected first by the parents then the public school. if the parents were
too xstupid to use contraception, the rest of us should not pay for it.

Why not? It's not the kids fault so why should the kid suffer?!

why let parents off. 1. when using public subsidizing of kids, their parents must have tied tubes. 2. parents get no free time away from kids [work or spend time on kids only].


> Or how about: we realize that we can either spend the money giving
> them an education or we can spend the money giving them a
> bunk and three-squares in a prison. Once we build some more.

or a penal colony to just be dumped on and forgotten [rid of once and for
all]. prisons are also a waste of funds. just drop them on an island and be
rid of them.

That's either a REALLY bad idea (because they *will* find trade
partners willing to arm them or take them in as soldiers) or it's
simply a crueler, longer, more suffering version of execution.

suffering of prisoners is not our concern, only their cost.


> Or they're afraid that their children will learn about *gasp*
> evolution!

parents could teach them evolution if they want. I'm saying that

Sure, but a good fraction of the folks pushing for home-schooling
laws are fundies a-scared of what their kids are being exposed to.


many oppose kids not being taught basics like reading, writing, math, etc. too much teaching a social agenda like such and such history month [as opposed to just teaching history itself].

homeschooling is documented to out perform public schools. yet public

*Some* homeschooling. And based on what objective measures?

standardized testing. SATs, ACTs.
academically they do, but public schools always bring up social programs like they had something of value in that department denying the fact that their model of socialization is based on prison.

schools routinely oppose the option because they want to FORCE as many kids
as possible into their system that they know is broken just so they can
collect state money. why should some parents be prevented from home

Nobody is preventing parents from educating their kids. Even if their
kids are forced to go to public or sanctioned private schools, there
is
NOTHING stopping the parents from teaching their kids ANYTHING.
My mom taught me to read before I even went to school---the fact that
the school was going to do it too meant nothing nor did it stop her.


why pay public schools to do something parents could do themselves? why subsidize negligent parents? why not yank those kids away from said lazy parents?

the better teachers get jobs in private schools not public ones. not all

Better how?

better performing teachers get jobs at private schools than those working public schools.


public schools are alike to be fair. the ones in the worst neighborhoods are
the least provided for and generally get the worst staff and teachers

That's sorta what *I've* been saying. But the problem can be fixed
without tearing it all down. Start by equally funding all public
schools
and making the starting pay of teachers a level that will compete with
other options the better college kids have at graduation.

the public schools are a lost cause and money not wasted on it is money saved. the schools cannot be saved. the sooner we just accept that, the more money we can save.

we can save money making sure anybody on welfare having a 2nd child gets those tubes tied fast! if they resist, cut them off public subsidizing immediately and permanently and yank those kids away as they are clearly irresponsible.

.

Loading