CBS "News" strikes AGAIN

"Dude" wrote in message
...
Tom,

Making the parents more involved by making them pay would be great, but I
am
not gonna hold my breath. Also, I am not sure that the end result would
be
a net improvement. Many parents are such numbskulls that the kids may end
up getting even less education.

I know what you are thinking, but there is not room in the jails for all
the
parents who fit this bill.

Jail? How does that fit?

So, I will agree with you in theory, but have to
disagree in what is practical (at least until congress is taken over by
libertarians).

Until the majority of people change between their ears, nothing is going to
change/improve _politically_.
As long as the notion of public schools is predominnt, it will continue its
course.

"You can't change a country through the politcal process; you can only
change people's point-of-view (ie, political views/outlook).



OUT


"Tom Sixkiller" wrote in message
...

"Dude" wrote in message
...
Teachers I have talked too care less about the money and more about
the
fact
that they have ZERO control in the classroom. The students have a
right
to
do whatever they please wthout recourse. Only the best leaders are
capable
of controlling a classroom through force of personality. Enough of
those
people might be recruited with lots more money, but maybe not.

The quicker solution is to either bring back corporal punishment and
expulsions, or go with vouchers that will allow a free market to
separate
the children of idiots from the children of responsible parents.

Right there you hit the nail on the head...kinda.

If parents had to pay for their kids education out of THEIR pocket,
instead
of their neighbors, damn sure they would pay attention to their kids
learning and behavior. Ain't going to happen in tax funded schools.

I figured you would want to throw parents who wouldn't pay for their kids
education into jail. Looks like it was a bad guess.


"Tom Sixkiller" wrote in message
...

"Dude" wrote in message
...
Tom,

Making the parents more involved by making them pay would be great, but
I
am
not gonna hold my breath. Also, I am not sure that the end result would
be
a net improvement. Many parents are such numbskulls that the kids may
end
up getting even less education.

I know what you are thinking, but there is not room in the jails for all
the
parents who fit this bill.

Jail? How does that fit?

So, I will agree with you in theory, but have to
disagree in what is practical (at least until congress is taken over by
libertarians).

Until the majority of people change between their ears, nothing is going
to
change/improve _politically_.
As long as the notion of public schools is predominnt, it will continue
its
course.

"You can't change a country through the politcal process; you can only
change people's point-of-view (ie, political views/outlook).



OUT


"Tom Sixkiller" wrote in message
...

"Dude" wrote in message
...
Teachers I have talked too care less about the money and more about
the
fact
that they have ZERO control in the classroom. The students have a
right
to
do whatever they please wthout recourse. Only the best leaders are
capable
of controlling a classroom through force of personality. Enough of
those
people might be recruited with lots more money, but maybe not.

The quicker solution is to either bring back corporal punishment and

expulsions, or go with vouchers that will allow a free market to
separate
the children of idiots from the children of responsible parents.

Right there you hit the nail on the head...kinda.

If parents had to pay for their kids education out of THEIR pocket,
instead
of their neighbors, damn sure they would pay attention to their kids
learning and behavior. Ain't going to happen in tax funded schools.

"Dude" wrote in message
...
I figured you would want to throw parents who wouldn't pay for their kids
education into jail. Looks like it was a bad guess.


People would educate their kids that same way the feed them, cloth them,
care for their health..the same way they do those things for them now. If
they fail to do those things now, we call it...what?




"Tom Sixkiller" wrote in message
...

"Dude" wrote in message
...
Tom,

Making the parents more involved by making them pay would be great,
but
I
am
not gonna hold my breath. Also, I am not sure that the end result
would
be
a net improvement. Many parents are such numbskulls that the kids may
end
up getting even less education.

I know what you are thinking, but there is not room in the jails for
all
the
parents who fit this bill.

Jail? How does that fit?

So, I will agree with you in theory, but have to
disagree in what is practical (at least until congress is taken over
by
libertarians).

Until the majority of people change between their ears, nothing is going
to
change/improve _politically_.
As long as the notion of public schools is predominnt, it will continue
its
course.

"You can't change a country through the politcal process; you can only
change people's point-of-view (ie, political views/outlook).



OUT


"Tom Sixkiller" wrote in message
...

"Dude" wrote in message
...
Teachers I have talked too care less about the money and more
about
the
fact
that they have ZERO control in the classroom. The students have a
right
to
do whatever they please wthout recourse. Only the best leaders are
capable
of controlling a classroom through force of personality. Enough
of
those
people might be recruited with lots more money, but maybe not.

The quicker solution is to either bring back corporal punishment
and

expulsions, or go with vouchers that will allow a free market to
separate
the children of idiots from the children of responsible parents.

Right there you hit the nail on the head...kinda.

If parents had to pay for their kids education out of THEIR pocket,
instead
of their neighbors, damn sure they would pay attention to their kids
learning and behavior. Ain't going to happen in tax funded schools.

"Dude" wrote in message
...
I figured you would want to throw parents who wouldn't pay for their kids
education into jail. Looks like it was a bad guess.


People would educate their kids that same way the feed them, cloth them,
care for their health..the same way they do those things for them now. If
they fail to do those things now, we call it...what?




"Tom Sixkiller" wrote in message
...

"Dude" wrote in message
...
Tom,

Making the parents more involved by making them pay would be great,
but
I
am
not gonna hold my breath. Also, I am not sure that the end result
would
be
a net improvement. Many parents are such numbskulls that the kids may
end
up getting even less education.

I know what you are thinking, but there is not room in the jails for
all
the
parents who fit this bill.

Jail? How does that fit?

So, I will agree with you in theory, but have to
disagree in what is practical (at least until congress is taken over
by
libertarians).

Until the majority of people change between their ears, nothing is going
to
change/improve _politically_.
As long as the notion of public schools is predominnt, it will continue
its
course.

"You can't change a country through the politcal process; you can only
change people's point-of-view (ie, political views/outlook).



OUT


"Tom Sixkiller" wrote in message
...

"Dude" wrote in message
...
Teachers I have talked too care less about the money and more
about
the
fact
that they have ZERO control in the classroom. The students have a
right
to
do whatever they please wthout recourse. Only the best leaders are
capable
of controlling a classroom through force of personality. Enough
of
those
people might be recruited with lots more money, but maybe not.

The quicker solution is to either bring back corporal punishment
and

expulsions, or go with vouchers that will allow a free market to
separate
the children of idiots from the children of responsible parents.

Right there you hit the nail on the head...kinda.

If parents had to pay for their kids education out of THEIR pocket,
instead
of their neighbors, damn sure they would pay attention to their kids
learning and behavior. Ain't going to happen in tax funded schools.

"Tom Sixkiller" wrote in message
...

"Dude" wrote in message
...
I figured you would want to throw parents who wouldn't pay for their
kids
education into jail. Looks like it was a bad guess.

People would educate their kids that same way the feed them, cloth them,
care for their health..the same way they do those things for them now. If
they fail to do those things now, we call it...what?

That depends. If the failure is because the costs far exceed the parents'
income, we call it poverty and lend a hand, as we should.

--Gary

"Gary Drescher" wrote in message
news:KJdQb.3700$U%5.21168@attbi_s03...
"Tom Sixkiller" wrote in message
...

"Dude" wrote in message
...
I figured you would want to throw parents who wouldn't pay for their
kids
education into jail. Looks like it was a bad guess.

People would educate their kids that same way the feed them, cloth them,
care for their health..the same way they do those things for them now.
If
they fail to do those things now, we call it...what?

That depends. If the failure is because the costs far exceed the parents'
income, we call it poverty and lend a hand, as we should.

No; it's called "irresponsibility". Any money spent on "educating their
kids" is going to be $$$ down a toilet...as wee see now where such kids
rules the schools. So, thus, it's a double whammy.

First, if the cost of feeding, etc, exceeds the parents income, they would
be less prone to breed IF there was no subsidy for irresponsibility. OTOH,
if someone decides to help those in trouble through no fault of their own,
there's already programs in place. Today scholarships and other programs
would be great, and are in fact reaching a heck of a lot of kids. It's also
amazing that so many parents that can't afford books, a computer, etc., can
afford all sorts of other "toys".

Now, if you want to sell your plane and donate the proceeds to some
open-ended education fund (no strings attached on the parents) be our guest.

Tom,

I agree with a lot of what you are saying, and would really like to see many
of these irresponsible parents get slapped. Especially the ones that had no
buisiness having kids in the first place.

However, what do you do to keep from punishing the kid for his parents
irresponsibility?



"Tom Sixkiller" wrote in message
...

"Gary Drescher" wrote in message
news:KJdQb.3700$U%5.21168@attbi_s03...
"Tom Sixkiller" wrote in message
...

"Dude" wrote in message
...
I figured you would want to throw parents who wouldn't pay for their
kids
education into jail. Looks like it was a bad guess.

People would educate their kids that same way the feed them, cloth
them,
care for their health..the same way they do those things for them now.
If
they fail to do those things now, we call it...what?

That depends. If the failure is because the costs far exceed the
parents'
income, we call it poverty and lend a hand, as we should.

No; it's called "irresponsibility". Any money spent on "educating their
kids" is going to be $$$ down a toilet...as wee see now where such kids
rules the schools. So, thus, it's a double whammy.

First, if the cost of feeding, etc, exceeds the parents income, they would
be less prone to breed IF there was no subsidy for irresponsibility. OTOH,
if someone decides to help those in trouble through no fault of their own,
there's already programs in place. Today scholarships and other programs
would be great, and are in fact reaching a heck of a lot of kids. It's
also
amazing that so many parents that can't afford books, a computer, etc.,
can
afford all sorts of other "toys".

Now, if you want to sell your plane and donate the proceeds to some
open-ended education fund (no strings attached on the parents) be our
guest.

"Dude" wrote in message
...
Tom,

I agree with a lot of what you are saying, and would really like to see
many
of these irresponsible parents get slapped. Especially the ones that had
no
buisiness having kids in the first place.

However, what do you do to keep from punishing the kid for his parents
irresponsibility?

You don;t punish the kid...you punish the parent.

As for the kid, as mentioned there are a lot of programs (such as School
Trusts in the various states), but the problem is dealing with kids that
just don't want to learn. Throwing them into schools only causes enormous
disruptions.

As for me, we made sure all my kids got good _educations_, (not
indoctrinations) so that they could support my wife and I in our old age.

"Tom Sixkiller" wrote in message
...

"Dude" wrote in message
...
Tom,

I agree with a lot of what you are saying, and would really like to see
many
of these irresponsible parents get slapped. Especially the ones that
had
no
buisiness having kids in the first place.

However, what do you do to keep from punishing the kid for his parents
irresponsibility?

You don;t punish the kid...you punish the parent.

As for the kid, as mentioned there are a lot of programs (such as School
Trusts in the various states), but the problem is dealing with kids that
just don't want to learn. Throwing them into schools only causes enormous
disruptions.

They used to be segregated from the normal kids. Now days everybody gets
thrown into the same pot and everybody in the pot rots. Doesn't seem it
would take much brain power to figure out this particular social experiment
doesn't work.

As for me, we made sure all my kids got good _educations_, (not
indoctrinations) so that they could support my wife and I in our old age.

"G.R. Patterson III" wrote:

Judah wrote:

That's what happens when teachers make minimum wage, and celebrities make
$100,000 an episode...

Well, teachers haven't made that little in a LLLOOONNNGGG time! Around here, the
going rate is around 50K for substitutes and over 70K to start for regulars. By
comparison, starting pay for a software developer with an MS is about 50K.

According to salary.com the median pay for a teacher in New Brunswick, NJ is $51,
927 with the 25th percentile salary at $41,143. I think this is probably much
closer to reality. NO schools start at 70K and many top out below that. Somerset
High School is about $2,000 lower and NYC about $2,000 higher. Substitutes in
Fairfax County, VA get $10 an hour. Subs are almost always hired by the hour with
no benefits. A starting teacher in Fairfax County gets $35,813 and 7% of that comes
off the top to pay for pension (yes, we pay our own). Fairfax is considered a "good
paying" district in a very expensive area. 40 miles west of here the pay drops
almost $10,000 a year. http://www.fcps.edu/DHR/salary/scalepdfs/04tchr195.pdf
shows more realistic teacher salaries.
Margy





George Patterson
Great discoveries are not announced with "Eureka!". What's usually said is
"Hummmmm... That's interesting...."