Wirt wrote:
> The point I meant to argue was every child's first, best teachers are
their
> parents. These are the people who either instill a joy in life-long
> learning, or they stifle it. I've been in homes where there are no books,
the children
> aren't read to at night, nor are they even rarely spoken to
> in an intelligent manner.
>
> Ignorance, superstition and poverty are as much learned attributes as
> any other form of knowledge or behavior, and the larger the
> percentage of these children that come to exist, the more they
> impoverish us all.
> It is in our own enlightened self-interest to do whatever we can to
elevate
> our neighbors' children to their highest potentials, to provide them with
every
> possible economic and educational opportunity.

Leaving the question of who should teach the children for a moment, the
Detroit Free Press did a story last week showing how much high school
drop-outs costs Michigan tax-payers. Drop-outs are statistically far more
likely to be on unemployment, on welfare, or in prison. The costs of
corporations to bring younger workers "up-to-snuff" is staggering when one
considers the amount of money spent up to that point.

I also couldn't agree with Wirt more in that nothing is more important than
instilling a person with the joy of life-long learning. Many on this list
have this joy. It is why we discuss and argue as we do. I don't mind
subsidizing education with my money or my time. (I may wish that parents had
more control of how that money is spent, but that's another OT topic
altogether...)

Mark W.

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