Posted on 03/12/2005 5:50:24 AM PST by Rakkasan1
There was nostalgia to spare for state Sen. David Hann on a recent visit to Cooper Elementary School in Minneapolis, where he spent his early school years.
And a jarring message to be delivered.
Raised in Minneapolis, the 52-year-old Eden Prairie Republican, Vietnam veteran, and former theology student noted that the polished hallway floors looked the same. So did the beige lath-and-plaster walls. He quickly identified his sixth-grade classroom. A pleasant surprise was meeting an old classmate, Jim Hovey, now a school maintenance man. Hann and Hovey tossed around names of old classmates for awhile. Then as they shook hands and parted, Hovey said, "Try not to destroy public education."
Chalk it up as another strong reaction to Hann's school voucher proposal.
(Excerpt) Read more at startribune.com ...
Too late!
Ah yes. The words of a career educator. He probably wouldn't feel as strongly about vouchers if he could hold on to his job serving the public.
I don't want my tax money going to religious schools, most especially islamofascist schools as well as any others. Let private money pay for this, not big govt federal beaucratic nonsense.
In defense of the public schools, we have to acknowledge that a lot of the problems are social in nature - not necessarily the schools themselves. Students can get away with just about anything and public schools are unable to boot them out - between policies forced on the schools by the liberal laws and the threat of lawsuits by parents, teachers and administrators have their hands tied. Private schools, on the other hand, have the right to get rid of trouble makers.
I'm not saying that some schools didn't do it to themselves but I believe that if you stock a classroom with kids whose parents don't care if they learn, the teacher can't always be the one held responsible.
I don't want my money going to atheist schools, most especially Communist atheist schools. Let private money pay for it not big government federal bureaucratic nonsense.
So shall we agree to kill public education entirely or do you just have some thing that you would like to share with the class?
true. being forced to devote limited resources to people
who are often not worth the effort is one of the hallmarks
of socialism-nobody should ever be allowed to fail.
"I don't want my tax money going to religious schools..."
Under a voucher plan *your* tax money won't, unless you choose to send your child to one.
The unions are becoming savy at generating the necessary preplanned spontaneious coreographed surprise outrage.
The gross incompetence of the public school teachers is obvious. Consider how many public teachers with fake university degrees only get caught because the diploma mill school collapses, not because their "ignorance is exposed" . There is no way to distinguish between a public school teacher with a proper degree and a public school teacher with a fake degree. They both have the same level of competence.
Its a sad day when good teachers are the rarified exception no the rule.
The socialists have gutted public school fairly well, otherwise home schoolers and private schools would not have left them in the dust.
All money is private money. There is no such thnk as government money. This is where people make a huge mistake. All monies belong to private people, the government simply borrows some to run the government but it is still our money.
If people were aware of this fact they would be screaming louder about taxes.
Getting to the point of the vouchers, giving money to people to pay for private schools is no different than giving it to public schools except for one point, it ends up in the hands of the people who actually earned it.
I'm in favor of vouchers, even though my children went to both public and private schools and my grandchildren are split between public and private schools. Since they can afford to send their kids where they choose, vouchers are not necessary for them. The kids that need it the most are from center city areas where the parents can not afford choice. These kids need help and will help the country in the long term. Quality education is a requirement if we are going to maintain America's strength in the world.
I'm not saying that some schools didn't do it to themselves but I believe that if you stock a classroom with kids whose parents don't care if they learn, the teacher can't always be the one held responsible.
But isn't this just a BETTER argument for vouchers? Yes, I understand the argument for getting the government completely out of education, but children in America deserve an opportunity to be educated, and their parents may fail to provide that opportunity. This is NOT the fault of the children! Vouchers, particularly if they provide for home schooling, fill that gap, and keep America's obligation to its youth.
Indoctrinification (don't look for that in the dictionary) has risen from the ashes of education.
Under a voucher plan *your* tax money won't, unless you choose to send your child to one."
I am all for vouchers, but your money would go to religious schools if you pay school taxes and do not have any children in schools (so you do not get money back in teh form of vouchers.)
Just a minor correction, not a disagreement. Your point depends on having a child in school, and a lot of people do not have any children in school, and some never will. I have three children, going on four children, so I will have children in school-- Catholic School-- for as long as I can imagine. I favor vouchers for reasons of principle as well as reasons of self-interest. I know, however, that the minute vouchers become widespread, my children's schools will go up in price somewhat. The burden on the Parish will be lifted somewhat, and the teachers' pay will go up somewhat. Nobody should expect vouchers to cover their entire tuition once they become widespread and the education markets adjust.
I agree. Some say I don't have a dog in this hunt because I'm childless . . . but they're wrong. The Liberals are dumbing-down our schools and we'll soon be a mental-wasteland if something isn't changed -- and that affects EVERY American.
When did we as a country decide "second-rate" was acceptable? I never voted for second-rate educations for our youngsters.
The Liberals hoisted this on us by . . .
1. Backing unions that protect inept educators.
2. Incrementally and relentlessly attacking "recognition" of scholastic achievement because (insert your minority of choice here) were being discriminated against when in fact those minorities are being held back because NOTHING is expected of them -- (a little side note -- the Asian cultures don't appear to be suffering).
3. Relentlessly attacking the very principles that made the U.S. the Greatest country the world has ever known -- religion, patriotism, pride, unity, ambition, and, MOST IMPORTANTLY, Liberals have either drowned-out or severely weakened that most basic tenet of what it is to be an American -- the ability to Dream big Dreams and make them happen -- Anything is possible if one applies oneself to the task.
The above list could be endless as Liberals have relentlessly and viciously attacked all the basic factors that make ours a unique and vibrant society . . . and, right now, they're succeeding.
Raising a successful youngster can be as difficult or as simple as parents and society decide it should be. Morality, spirituality, education, and the ability to dream should most definitely be on the list.
Liberals believe in none of the above.
EVERY American youngster should have the opportunity to get a quality education. We owe them this at the bare minimum. We fail at our own peril.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.