BLU
Active topics
  1. Despite what your hero chairman Mao thought, the gov cannot do everything better.

  2. Despite what you think, they often can. The parents can't be expected to have all the knowledge, pedagogical ability and all that stuff to teach a child everything it needs to know. I think that is why schools were invented.

    Parents can just be bad parents and examples too.
  3. I wish we'd had a post bookmark feature. I would bookmark ^ that post as one of my favorite replies in this topic ever.
  6. Originally posted by Mr_Trek:[..]

    Despite what you think, they often can. The parents can't be expected to have all the knowledge, pedagogical ability and all that stuff to teach a child everything it needs to know. I think that is why schools were invented.

    Parents can just be bad parents and examples too.

    Thats more or less whta Pol Pot thought, which was why destroying the family was one of the goals of year zero.
  7. I love when this board turns into a lefty circle jerk.

  8. I'm all for putting the responsibility solely at the parents, because I think they are getting of too easy the last couple of decades.. Teachers in the last decades were expected to do the stuff parents should do. But imho that is wrong, education suffers and the kids stay little bastards :#

    Teachers should be judged on their ability to teach not how to handle terribly raised bastards
  9. As long as the teachers union hold power, that wont happen.
  11. In regards to the post I made about public schools having food health standards, its understandable why they want this law. They (the gov't) want kids to make healthy choices. Instead of banning foods, why not educate children (and parents too) instead. Open discussions in the classroom should be permitted (looking at you, teacher who refused to let a student question Obama's presidency). Also, if people really want educators to take on partial parental roles (especially with this law), perhaps they should be paid as much as a babysitter?

    Also - Banning sales of sweets during school hours (as well as school events, mind you) negatively affect school programs. Whoever came up with the idea didn't take into consideration how small programs are funded. Unless they thought those programs would be carried by the taxpayers, but hey, they call it Taxachusetts for a reason.
  12. Originally posted by stj0691:In regards to the post I made about public schools having food health standards, its understandable why they want this law. They (the gov't) want kids to make healthy choices. Instead of banning foods, why not educate children (and parents too) instead. Open discussions in the classroom should be permitted (looking at you, teacher who refused to let a student question Obama's presidency). Also, if people really want educators to take on partial parental roles (especially with this law), perhaps they should be paid as much as a babysitter?

    This is pretty much what I said. Glad you agree
Make sure to not miss out on any U2 news and updates: follow us on Twitter, Instagram and like us on Facebook.
Make sure to not miss out on any U2 news and updates: follow us on Twitter, Instagram and like us on Facebook.
Make sure to not miss out on any U2 news and updates: follow us on Twitter, Instagram and like us on Facebook.
Make sure to not miss out on any U2 news and updates: follow us on Twitter, Instagram and like us on Facebook.