Cessna sued for skydiving accident.

"kontiki" wrote

The reason there is a "slant" to a public education is that the
vast majority of teachers graduate from public schools, then
go to a college or university then go right into teaching. That
is inbreeding... pretty much the same way with politicians...
most have never had an actual real job in their life.

So teaching isn't a real job, huh? Another slap in the face to teachers.
Nice.

Come walk in my shoes for a week or two. You _will_ change your mind.

What job would you like an English teacher to get, anyway? Not much use for
people sitting around conjugating verbs, or diagraming sentence structrures.

The same thing could be said for at least half of what is taught in school.
Not much direct application to the real world. Anyway, much of learning is
learning how to learn. Specific application comes at the job site, in most
vocations.

I'm not gonna argue this beyond what I have just said because
those that believe in these systems will defend them forever.
Meanwhile, the US continues into its slow economic and cultural
decline. The current state of GA is but a symptom of this.

So teaching in the public schools is responsible (even indirectly) for the
decline in GA.

THAT is the biggest streach I believe I have ever seen on this newsgroup,
even from MX.

People like to shoot the messenger but its a fact.

People shoot messengers when they are full of sh*t, and so dense they don't
realize they are full of sh*t.

Sheesh!
--
Jim in NC

Morgans wrote:

So teaching in the public schools is responsible (even indirectly) for the
decline in GA.

THAT is the biggest streach I believe I have ever seen on this newsgroup,
even from MX.

I won't bother to insult your lack of proofreading (as you did to me)
because I am capable of understanding and then debating a point in
spite of a minor typo someone happened to make while expressing and
impassioned response.

I am not saying there are not some good (albeit frustrated) teachers
in the public schools. But that does not justify the system itself...
it is in fact very flawed. The same is true of government... it is ver
flawed and corrupt but there may be a few good ones out there.


People like to shoot the messenger but its a fact.

People shoot messengers when they are full of sh*t, and so dense they don't
realize they are full of sh*t.

Sheesh!

I can see that you are incapable of discussing this concept within
the contraints of logic alone but rather must resort to personal
insults. I do understand that so much of this subject is sensitive
to you because it involves the career you have chosen.

"kontiki" wrote in message
...
Morgans wrote:

So teaching in the public schools is responsible (even indirectly) for
the decline in GA.

THAT is the biggest streach I believe I have ever seen on this newsgroup,
even from MX.

I won't bother to insult your lack of proofreading (as you did to me)
because I am capable of understanding and then debating a point in
spite of a minor typo someone happened to make while expressing and
impassioned response.

I am not saying there are not some good (albeit frustrated) teachers
in the public schools. But that does not justify the system itself...
it is in fact very flawed. The same is true of government... it is ver
flawed and corrupt but there may be a few good ones out there.


People like to shoot the messenger but its a fact.

People shoot messengers when they are full of sh*t, and so dense they
don't realize they are full of sh*t.

Sheesh!

I can see that you are incapable of discussing this concept within
the contraints of logic alone but rather must resort to personal
insults. I do understand that so much of this subject is sensitive
to you because it involves the career you have chosen.

Of course...he's a "teacher" that is so far removed from reality, it's a
tragedy that someone entrusts their offspring to his care.

As for full of sh*t, his lame excuses, right out of the teachers union
playbook, demonstrates something akin to a complete mental shift into LaLa
land.

If his argumentation here is any indication, it's no small wonder we now
have the better part of two generations that completely bonkers. If we note
the propensity of so many to make childish excuses, it's because they had
extensive exposure to that mindset in what we call their "teachers". Many of
these folks should be in padded rooms, not school rooms.

On Dec 2, 5:39 pm, "Matt W. Barrow"
wrote:

If his argumentation here is any indication, it's no small wonder we now
have the better part of two generations that completely bonkers. If we note
the propensity of so many to make childish excuses, it's because they had
extensive exposure to that mindset in what we call their "teachers". Many of
these folks should be in padded rooms, not school rooms.- Hide quoted text -


Fjuck me dude !This is brilliant !

Its possible that public schools could be eliminated entirely if the
number of people who cannot afford private schools is not large. Low
income families could then be given coupons paid for by taxpayer money
that can be redeemed for education in private schools. All this
assumes that if public schools are eliminated gradually, private
schools will spring up to fill a market need and the total costs are
going to be the same in the long run but with a better quality of
education. Taxes would also need to be adjusted to reflect the fact
that the government is no longer funding public schools.

On Dec 2, 5:26 pm, kontiki wrote:
Morgans wrote:

So teaching in the public schools is responsible (even indirectly) for the
decline in GA.

THAT is the biggest streach I believe I have ever seen on this newsgroup,
even from MX.

I won't bother to insult your lack of proofreading (as you did to me)
because I am capable of understanding and then debating a point in
spite of a minor typo someone happened to make while expressing and
impassioned response.

I am not saying there are not some good (albeit frustrated) teachers
in the public schools. But that does not justify the system itself...
it is in fact very flawed. The same is true of government... it is ver
flawed and corrupt but there may be a few good ones out there.



People like to shoot the messenger but its a fact.

People shoot messengers when they are full of sh*t, and so dense they don't
realize they are full of sh*t.

Sheesh!

I can see that you are incapable of discussing this concept within
the contraints of logic alone but rather must resort to personal
insults. I do understand that so much of this subject is sensitive
to you because it involves the career you have chosen.

wrote:
Its possible that public schools could be eliminated entirely if the
number of people who cannot afford private schools is not large. Low
income families could then be given coupons paid for by taxpayer money
that can be redeemed for education in private schools. All this
assumes that if public schools are eliminated gradually, private
schools will spring up to fill a market need and the total costs are
going to be the same in the long run but with a better quality of
education. Taxes would also need to be adjusted to reflect the fact
that the government is no longer funding public schools.


Bingo! That is exactly how it should work. People should have
choice in how their money is spent but the NEA (and politicians)
is dead set against all of that. They are all for choice in reproduction
but when it comes to public education they want institutionalized
mediocrity and continues status quo (job security I guess).

"kontiki" wrote in message
...
wrote:
Its possible that public schools could be eliminated entirely if the
number of people who cannot afford private schools is not large. Low
income families could then be given coupons paid for by taxpayer money
that can be redeemed for education in private schools.

Been tires...doesn't work. It doesn't work because government still has
those schools by the jewels and to a great extent defines curriculum and
method.

All this
assumes that if public schools are eliminated gradually, private
schools will spring up to fill a market need and the total costs are
going to be the same in the long run but with a better quality of
education. Taxes would also need to be adjusted to reflect the fact
that the government is no longer funding public schools.

How about just having a straight tax CREDIT for school costs, regardless of
what school a parents kids attend?



Bingo! That is exactly how it should work. People should have
choice in how their money is spent but the NEA (and politicians)
is dead set against all of that. They are all for choice in reproduction
but when it comes to public education they want institutionalized
mediocrity and continues status quo (job security I guess).

Yet you want tax funded education? He who pays sets the rules. Ain't got to
happen and wouldn't if the teacher unions fell asleep and it somehow passed.

Matt W. Barrow wrote:


Bingo! That is exactly how it should work. People should have
choice in how their money is spent but the NEA (and politicians)
is dead set against all of that. They are all for choice in reproduction
but when it comes to public education they want institutionalized
mediocrity and continues status quo (job security I guess).

Yet you want tax funded education? He who pays sets the rules. Ain't got to
happen and wouldn't if the teacher unions fell asleep and it somehow passed.




What? I never said I favor tax funded education. Personally I think
everyone should be responsible for their _own_ children's education
and not expect other people to pay for it. (of course that would
never happen because it requires people to assume responsibility for
their own life and that is politically incorrect in this day and age)
The straight tax credit is an excellent way to go, but also requires
assumes people will accept responsibility for their own and their
children's life and we know people are used to the government doing
that.


I was simply applauding the previous posters idea because it
has a lot of merit and certainly a hell of a lot better than the
way we things are done now.

"kontiki" wrote in message
...
Matt W. Barrow wrote:


Bingo! That is exactly how it should work. People should have
choice in how their money is spent but the NEA (and politicians)
is dead set against all of that. They are all for choice in reproduction
but when it comes to public education they want institutionalized
mediocrity and continues status quo (job security I guess).

Yet you want tax funded education? He who pays sets the rules. Ain't got
to happen and wouldn't if the teacher unions fell asleep and it somehow
passed.




What? I never said I favor tax funded education.

Umm.." girish" said, "Low income families could then be given coupons paid
for by taxpayer money
that can be redeemed for education in private schools."

And you said, "Bingo! That is exactly how it should work."

Operative word: "exactly"

To me, that sounds like you agree.

Personally I think
everyone should be responsible for their _own_ children's education
and not expect other people to pay for it. (of course that would
never happen because it requires people to assume responsibility for
their own life and that is politically incorrect in this day and age)
The straight tax credit is an excellent way to go, but also requires
assumes people will accept responsibility for their own and their
children's life and we know people are used to the government doing
that.


I was simply applauding the previous posters idea because it
has a lot of merit and certainly a hell of a lot better than the
way we things are done now.

Quite.

If you can't feed, clothe, provide for their education, provide for thei
health care, etc., for you kids, don't have them. Don't make them parasites
at the public trough.

wrote:
Its possible that public schools could be eliminated entirely if the
number of people who cannot afford private schools is not large. Low
income families could then be given coupons paid for by taxpayer money
that can be redeemed for education in private schools. All this
assumes that if public schools are eliminated gradually, private
schools will spring up to fill a market need and the total costs are
going to be the same in the long run but with a better quality of
education. Taxes would also need to be adjusted to reflect the fact
that the government is no longer funding public schools.

Aound here private schools run anywhere from $20,000 to $35,000 a year
and the systems that spent the most per pupil spend less than $7,000. If
the taxpayers give coupons for private schools rather than fund the
public schools taxes would have to go up about $20,000 per student. Are
you going to vote for that tax increase?

Margy