Yet another reason to send your kids to private school

Written by Benaiah on April 2nd, 2008

3rd-Graders’ Plot To Attack Teacher Foiled, Ga. Cops Say Kids Planned To Bind Teacher With Handcuffs And Stab Her With Steak Knife

Unfortunately these kids will be allowed back in school at some point because education is a right. (sarcasm intended)

Posted in |

18 Comments so far ↓

Apr
2
11:18
AM

Ryan
Honestly this is not a reflection of the school system, but the pathetic state of parents in this nation. The problems in the education system like this stem from pathetic parents who should not have children if they are not fit for the task. I am not calling for government intervention, but people should have enough common sense that if you cannot be a good parent, do not have kids.

We can only hope these kids are removed from their home environments and the parents are dealt with.
Apr
2
11:57
AM

Herodotus
No, Ryan it is also a reflection of the school system. The public schools in this country are fully capable of disciplining, expelling, or sending students to alternative schools, but because every student represents money in the government school’s budgets, many of our “wonderful” public schools consistently delay, or even refuse to take necessarily disciplinary steps until it is to late.
Apr
2
1:02
PM

DavidShiffman
“but people should have enough common sense that if you cannot be a good parent, do not have kids.”

Once again, this is a pro-choice argument, unless you are claiming that only those who can be good parents should be allowed to have sex.
Apr
2
2:53
PM

Ryan
Herodotus… it is the parents fault still considering they elect the school boards that control the schools. If the parents really cared, they would rise up and throw out school board officials who refuse to act. If the schools were flawed in the eyes of parents, they would elect a school board that reflects their values.

As someone who is not far attached from the public school system and has friends who are student teaching now, I know for certain most of the problems in the system deal with the fact kids have a poor home environment with pathetic parents who should not have kids. Eight hours a day for nine months a year is not going to make kids be good citizens. I would be willing to bet you can find some sort of deficiency in the home life of every kid involved here. The school system should not be parents and honestly parents who refuse to uphold their role should be thrown in prison.
Apr
2
2:55
PM

Ryan
David… I am pro-responsible behavior. People should not put themselves in situations they cannot handle or find a way to handle.
Apr
2
11:37
PM

DavidShiffman
Ryan- So people who are not able to support children should not be having sex?
Apr
3
9:59
AM

John
No, people should not have sex if they are unwilling to take responsibility for the possible consequences.
Apr
3
7:50
PM

Ryan
Exactly John.
Apr
3
9:05
PM

becky
And this is why I call many conservatives anti-sex. Do you also think that poor people should never have sex, since they might not be able to financially support any resulting offspring?

I’m always curious as to why conservatives love to tout this “personal responsibility” creed despite the fact 1) that they support abstinence only “education” that makes it difficult for people *to* take responsibility for their sexuality and 2) of their absolute resistance to making contraception more widely available, especially to the working class/ working poor.
Apr
4
1:52
AM

Langley
Uh, Becky, I think this was pretty well summed up by John’s comment. It has nothing to do with whether you’re rich, or poor. It has nothing to do with what sex you are. It has nothing to do with what race you are. I know that, barring these identity politics, it is hard for liberals to understand, but bear with me.

I don’t think anyone on this blog has stated that “abstinence only” education is the cure. I don’t think anyone on this blog has advocated that contraception should be less available. We acknowledge the world that we live in, we simply are against the more liberal mindset of culture that is taught to many regarding sex and many other topics.

It is one thing to argue for complete knowledge on all sides of an issue. It is another to simply teach that sex is OK regardless. There is a difference, and it is high time that liberals took heed.
Apr
4
11:39
AM

becky
Actually, I think a number of people here have been against wider availability of contraception: see Plan B debates (which work in the same was as birth control pills), the recent post on Virginia slashing funds to Planned Parenthood (in which the poster I was debating with admitted he couldn’t get behind policies that saw contraception as the way to lower abortion rates), etc. (And before someone uses this red herring: no, no tax dollars go toward abortions. PP provides low income women with gynecological exams and contraception as well, believe it or not.)

And while we’re tracing “who said what”: what liberal wants to teach “sex is OK regardless”?! Sex education shouldn’t be morality laden, it should simply teach the facts of how to access and use contraception to prevent disease and unintended pregnancies.
Apr
4
1:24
PM

Ryan
“Abstinence-only” education is a joke. Sex education in the schools is even more of a joke. Why cannot parents teach their children how to be responsible? Yet again we are back to the problem of schools being forced to be parents.

In many respects, I would argue that having a child is a financial choice as much as an emotional choice because lets face it, human life is expensive. If you are unwilling or unable to accept the burden, do not have kids. That might sound mean in the self-esteem driven society we live, but it is the truth.
Apr
4
1:57
PM

Publius
Becky — One need not look very far to find the underpinnings of their argument:

“The Commonwealth is supporting in various institutions many defective persons who…if incapable of procreating might be discharged with safety and become self-supporting with benefit to themselves and to society…experience has shown that heredity plays an important part in the transmission of insanity, imbecility, etc.. It is better for all the world, if instead of waiting to execute degenerate offspring for crime, or to let them starve for their imbecility, society can prevent those who are manifestly unfit from continuing their kind….Three generations of imbeciles are enough.”

-Oliver Wendell Holmes, Buck vs. Bell, 1927

full text: http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=CASE&court=US&vol=274&page=200
Apr
4
6:55
PM

chaotiform
I got a better iea–take the kids from irresponsible parents. Put them in governmental facilities and train them to fight for this nation.

We could have an endless supply of troops for future wars! Hell, we could breed them to produce more troops!(Sarcasm intended!)
Apr
6
7:41
PM

Roger
“I would argue that having a child is a financial choice as much as an emotional choice because lets face it, human life is expensive. ”

well Im happy no one said that to the parents of Christ, Moses, or Mohamed…
Apr
7
11:27
AM

Ryan
Roger… I do not think any of them asked the state for a handout to take care of the kids.
Apr
7
11:37
AM

DavidShiffman
I agree that having a child is partially a financial decision. However, not helping parents raise the kids PUNISHES THE KIDS for poor decisions that their parents made.

A good education (admittedly not what these kids presently have access to, but that’s exactly the point) is the way for these kids to rise out of poverty- to help themselves so that their children won’t need “state handouts”.

The fact that you need money (to go to a good school) in order to be able to get a good job and make money is a self-perpetuating cycle, and a troubling one.
Apr
7
11:39
AM

DavidShiffman
And Roger, as a Jew I’m troubled that you think that Moses is the equivalent of Jesus or Mohammed. That would be Abraham. Try opening a book sometime.