Tuesday, November 20, 2012

It wasn't about the children, it was about the check.

Ever hear someone complain about a mother on welfare, that she just had her child 'for a check'. I do not believe that, and I know that even poor women love their children. I'm sure if she has the natural social support of family to balance bills and domestic needs, she wouldn't be on welfare and still have her children.

Fewer students could mean less money

No, they are not talking about a welfare mom, they're talking about our school system. Someone how the government is upset women aren't having enough babies, so they have to consolidate and lose funding to a smaller school population.

It is no longer a public interest in educating children, whatever that number may be, but now it is all about the marker and choice. The idea and need for public school is an important one for the community, and that is why we fund it with tax dollars, no matter the enrollment.

Subsidizing education is not a market for parents to make consumer like choices, subsidizing education is a public goal with a community interest. Charters are subsidized as if public monies should be used to make private choices. They're not doing it for the child or out of public interest, they're doing it for the 'welfare check'.

So now all the school districts are looking for children and no where can they be found, they need it for the money.


  1. This is important stuff.  Demography IS destiny.  Questions about whether to expand GLTHS and how to manage the Lowell School System capital investment turn on these issues.  They need more ventilating.

    Regards  —  Cliff

  2. Why is a new charter school in Lowell building a new campus with our tax dollars, when the schools have empty space?

    Our tax dollars...