April 28, 2005

Children Left Behind

     So I'm watching a tivo'd episode of "The Daily Show" with Jon Stewart last night, and they're talking about schools changing the way they "do business" as to not upset the children and give them a high self-esteem.

     Now I can't remember the lady's name or the book she wrote, but some for instances she mentioned were the removal of red ink in some schools. Red is "angry" and threatening. They now use lavendar. Jon was stunned (as he shuld be), and suggested that while they were at it, teachers could just dribble papers with a little pot pourri as well. Another was getting rid of tag; because in tag, someone is always "it." And being "it" is bad. If you are "it," then you are slower and weaker than the other kids and blah blah blah. Many schools now play "circle of friends" in lieu of tag. What the hell is this? Circle of friends? What a load of bullshit!

     My child (if I ever have one) will go to a school where they are allowed tro play tag at recess. The world outside of school is not a "circle of friends." It is a cut throat world of dog-eat-dog, and playing games like circle of friends and removing red ink from test papers does not prepare a child for the world and life.

     Even Jon Stewart couldn't believe what he was hearing. At the end of the interview he made some crack about maybe some children should be left behind and everyone laughed. Not funny! I've been saying that ever since I heard about Bush's "no child left behind" policy. It sucks and it is rotting our schools even further. Nature insists that some are left behind. That's how the world works. The strong survive and the weak and stupid are left behind. It's called evolution.

     George Bush has put more money into education than any other American President within the same time frame. The "no child left behind act" just puts that money (our tax dollars) into the worng places. Instead of the money going to new computers, higher salaries for teachers, updated libraries, counseling, more science equipment, etc. etc., much of it goes to these "special" children who aren't going to be doing anything but working in a car wash the rest of their lives anyway. Why not spend the money on kids who can use it? The kid with a little potential to maybe study meteorology and learn how to predict where tornadoes are going or something like that?

     The point is we need funding to be appropriated to the right places, and that means leaving some children behind!



-www.moviepatron.com

1 comment:

Big Scott said...

Yeah, if they had spent less time on me in school they could have... like... spent the money on like... more books and stuff. They should have left me like.. behind and stuff.

I completely agreed with your take here. One of my friends is a teacher in a posh suburb and he says that this program is keeping the kids behind that have potential and wasting money on the rejects. That may be harsh, but we all know the kids that showed no potential and really didn't care if they ever did.
I know because I was one of them.