> Dave -
>
> Your example works well in the case you mention, then there is the case
> of the student suspended for saving his girl friend's life.  No amount
> of intervention by the parents did any good.  If this had happened to
> you I will be you no longer would support the schools 100%
>
> Like the unions I mentioned above, the Department of Education has
> persisted after the reason for it to be there is gone.
>
> I suggest the Department of Education be given the job of managing
> the Washington DC schools, then when we see a favorable performance/
> dollar ratio, we let them start involving themselve in the affairs
> of other schools.
>

Hmmm,

I didn't get this one and only saw it as part of a response from Brice.
Anyway, I guess this comes under a different lesson I've attempted to teach
my son.

Years ago my son asked if it was OK to defend himself in a fight. Given my
son's nature I saw this as a way for him to engage in this activity with an
excuse. I also saw where we have to make discisions in life and take those
consequences. So, my answer was "the punishment for fighting is the same
either way". You may not agree, but my logic was, if it worth defending
yourself then you will be agreable to the consequences.

Life is a series of choices. If I choose to save my girlfriend's life, it is
well worth getting suspended. If my son chooses to defend himself, then the
consequence of being suspended for fighting is acceptable. And I think I
would be more proud of my son if he knows this and does what is right,
regardless.

As far as teachers unions, I have no real opinion. They help, they hurt.
Seems the consequence of not taking care of your teachers directly is to be
stuck dealing with their union. I may not like it, you may not like it, but
their union is not likely to go away.

Blessings to you,

Dave

* To join/leave the list, search archives, change list settings, *
* etc., please visit http://raven.utc.edu/archives/hp3000-l.html *