Quote:
Originally Posted by Penske 2.0
That intersection only works if you choose to send your kids to public school, i.e. you choose to entrust your kids to certain people. The poor don't have that choice, and are at the mercy of whomever the Union sends us and protects at all costs. Sad that you and some of the other big brains here are so hellbent on oppressing and marginalising the least amongst us, but, to give you credit, the teachers' unions who do your bidding are doing a hellavu job at destroying our nation's youth.
|
Eloquent but incoherent. Everyone has a choice to homeschool (in California and Washington and many other states) and therefore the decision to send the kids to the public school is either a choice or a consequence of choices. The fact they "cannot" is only a statement that they value other things (such as full-time bankers' hours income of the custodial parent(s)) more highly.
If you think of tax-supported education as being mostly about maximizing the educational potential of your own children it is often in third place behind private school and homeschooling. If, on the other hand, you see a public benefit to making other people educate their own children whether or not they are willing to make the individual choices necessary to make it happen, then a system of taxpayer-supported schools is a no-brainer.
Your posts on this topic indicate you're mostly in the first category, so good luck with that -- a rational person would move out of an educational hellhole, perhaps someplace that pays for education at the price of being -- what was it? -- business unfriendly?
ETA "awful environment to do business."
