advertisement

TODAY'S QUESTION: Would you prefer a four-day school week for your kids?

Wednesday, May 11, 2011 | 12:51 p.m. CDT

On Monday night, the Harrisburg school board voted to change the district to a four-day school week.

In the fall, students will attend classes from Tuesday through Friday, with classes running from 8:05 a.m. until 3:47 p.m.— making school days close to eight hours.

By shortening the school week, the school district is projecting to save $75,000 per year. 

The savings will come from transportation costs and shorter shifts for secretarial and janitorial workers.

The measure isn't without some detractors. One farmer, Troy Douglas, told the Missourian he was against the change because of the added daycare expense that comes with not having kids in school on Mondays.

Missouri lawmakers passed legislation allowing districts to reduce school days back in 2009. However, academic achievement may not drop for two consecutive years to sustain a four-day school week. 

Would you prefer a four-day school week for your kids?


Like what you see here? Become a member.


Show Me the Errors (What's this?)

Report corrections or additions here. Leave comments below here.

You must be logged in to participate in the Show Me the Errors contest.


Comments

Steve Baumann May 11, 2011 | 8:12 p.m.

I'd like to only have to work 4 days a week......

(Report Comment)
fred smith May 12, 2011 | 2:26 p.m.

Current government schools have demonstrated a system-wide lack of ability to properly educate our children. It is time to stop with ridicules solutions to America’s education woes and end compulsory education entirely. Allowing parents to direct the education of their children without government and union interference would best serve the needs of the students and the nation.
Parents are better motivated and equipped than so called ‘professional educators’ to evaluate the value of their children/s education and best motivated to intervene in a positive way when necessary. Government/union interference only serves to unnecessarily complicate the situation.
Forget four days; forget three days or two or even one if it is in a government school. Simply, abolish government school.

(Report Comment)
fred smith May 12, 2011 | 8:25 p.m.

http://www.wfaa.com/news/education/Teach...

A must see for any parent with children in school

(Report Comment)
Mark Foecking May 13, 2011 | 6:06 a.m.

fred smith wrote:

"Parents are better motivated and equipped than so called ‘professional educators’ to evaluate the value of their children/s education and best motivated to intervene in a positive way when necessary."

Some of them are. Some are not. Parents are free to home school their children if they wish, or send them to private school.

The tuition for Columbia Independent School, I'm told, is about $30,000/year. CPS schools children for about 1/3 of that. If were having problems paying for our schools now, why do you think privatizing schools will make that better?

The schools are typically not the problem. Lack of parental involvement in education is a far greater one. Approaching the problem from ideology (All Government is Bad) is not a solution.

DK

(Report Comment)
Ellis Smith May 13, 2011 | 6:59 a.m.

WOW! $30,000 a year? That seems outrageous. We've sent my two granddaughters through a Roman Catholic high school - rated #2 among public and private high schools in the state where it's located - for less than $10,000 a year each. (We pay full freight, because we aren't Roman Catholic and don't qualify for a parish discount.)

As far as I'm concerned it's been worth every penny. The granddaughter now in college has been on the president's honor roll ever since she went to college, and her professors tell her she's been much better prepared in high school than most of their students have.

(Report Comment)
Corey Parks May 13, 2011 | 7:29 a.m.

Last year Columbia Independent School tuition is between 10,800 and 13,200 a year. And it depended on if you got student aid or what grade your child was it.

Not sure where the 30k a year came from. Last time the papers put out the cost per child in the local school system it was around $9,800 a year per student.

A voucher system would be best. Imagine if you could chose where your child or children went to school. Another private school would open up and there would be less students in the public school. Everyone would win. Less construction and maintenance for the public schools and more money going to where it should be.

At least we can be thankful that we are not New Jersey or Detroit. 15K plus per student and they still cant even read. More money does not fix stupid.

(Report Comment)
Ellis Smith May 13, 2011 | 7:39 a.m.

@ Corey Parks:

"More money does not fix stupid." It most certainly doesn't, and you need to append your remark to comments on the George Kennedy column now posted on the Missourian site.

The liberal view: More money will fix everything, yet it hasn't! And without something more than just money, IT WON'T!

(Report Comment)
fred smith May 13, 2011 | 1:58 p.m.

Nationally 40% of 8th graders are not proficient in math, we also come in 17th worldwide in science; face it our system is broken. We know for an absolute certainty that no amount of money is going to fix it because we have already poured billions into it. Just juke the system and start over. The best first step in doing so is to rescind all compulsory education laws within the country.
By doing so the exit from the government schools would begin slow and pick up as innovative private systems begin to emerge, and they would. For example there are already a number of private online schools that offer affordable tuition ($1,500 – $2,000) that are also regionally and/or nationally accredited. Like anything else as the demand for such schools increase we will see more of it. By removing arcane compulsory education laws- which in the US date back to the 1700’s under British rule and again reestablished in the early 1830’s after the revolutionary war – parents would be free to pursue non-traditional means of education without the interference of government bureaucrats.
It is true some parents would fail to educate their children but why would that be any worse than the thousands of teachers and school districts who currently fail to educate our children. As a nation then we would be no worse off. In fact, it would be better for the nation in that we would no longer be required to WASTE money on overpaid, under producing, incompetent so-called professional educators or teachers. The savings could be transferred to more productive or beneficial areas such as deficit reduction. Most parents however, would see to it that their children were properly educated.
So go ahead Fred send your kid somewhere else, well I do. But I can tell you that too often the government and unions, let’s not forget the money grubbing unions, want to interfere with alternative education by placing demands upon the parents i.e. your child must attend x amount of hours per day, your child must attend x days per year, teachers in private school must be certified etc. All such restrictions placed upon the parents are merely an effort to discourage them back into the government system. Removal of compulsory laws would break their malicious grip ultimately allowing America’s youth a chance at an honest education of real value to them and the nation as a whole.

(Report Comment)
fred smith May 13, 2011 | 2:05 p.m.

Also, regarding the four day week specifically I would vehemently object if the so-called educators/teachers were paid the same compensation they currently receive. If you want to reduced their work week by 20% then their compensation is reduced 20%

(Report Comment)
Paul Allaire May 13, 2011 | 4:05 p.m.

Fred, I can tell by the way you write you were educated in a private school. Right?

(Report Comment)
fred smith May 13, 2011 | 4:18 p.m.

Paul said, "Fred, I can tell by the way you write you were educated in a private school. Right?"

Paul, I am not the subject of discussion. Public school and a four day week are the topics. Do you have something to add?

(Report Comment)
Paul Allaire May 13, 2011 | 4:43 p.m.

Why I just wanted to complement you on your critical thinking skills.

"We know for an absolute certainty that no amount of money is going to fix it because we have already poured billions into it."

But seriously, (and I do have difficulty making a serious conversation of this) what do you think should become of those who cannot afford to hire a private tutor or send their children to a private school if public schools were disbanded? Particularly, what would become of children being raised in a single parent household or in a house where both parents worked? Do you think it would be a good thing to have uneducated youths and later uneducated adults everywhere people congregate? Should we then dismantle the public colleges as well?

This is coming from the perspective of someone who actually likes the idea of parents being allowed to home school and from someone who really dislikes taxes on property. (I feel that it should be on income.) This is coming from someone who looks with favor at any alternative to a standardized text book. This is coming from someone who is less than impressed with public education systems. I merely ask these questions because I believe in each case that when the whole is considered the alternative to a public system is worse.

(Report Comment)
fred smith May 13, 2011 | 9:23 p.m.

Paul said, “Particularly, what would become of children being raised in a single parent household or in a house where both parents worked?”

Are you saying Paul that government schools are simply over priced daycare centers? Because if that’s the case then double the reason to lock the doors and throw away the key.

And what of the billions spent on government schools without any improvement in student performance? As I understand it reading scores in 2009 for example were 289/500 up from 284/500 in 2005, yet well below even 1992 scores, hardly a 4 billion-dollar improvement.

I say $4 billion because that’s what the federal government confiscated from the American public to give to the No Child Left Behind boondoggle. That’s not counting the unfounded portions of the bill. Really Paul, you think less days in school or more money is going to fix reading scores? If you believe that, let me suggest getting your head out of the sand.

What about the violence in schools which is really getting out of control. http://www.wfaa.com/news/education/Teach......
Will a four-day week fix that? How about, I don’t know, another $100 billion?

You also make the assumption, which you do not support, that children would go uneducated. As I said in my earlier post I’m sure some parents would fail in their responsibility to educate their children; but again I ask why is that worse than allowing thousands of teachers and school districts to fail our children? Really Paul, why is it okay when the government school is the failure? They produce thousands of the “uneducated” youth and adults that you lament in your post; am I to understand your okay with that? I am not.

We arrest parents who allow their children to be truant; shouldn’t we also arrest teachers and government school administrators who fail in their responsibility towards our children?

“The National Center for Education Statistics (NCES) is the part of the United States Department of Education's Institute of Education Sciences (IES) that collects, analyzes, and publishes statistics on education and public school district finance information in the United States.” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Ce...

The NCES states that, “… 95.4% of high school graduates … cannot read proficiently.” But hey, we just need to spend another couple of billion, right Paul?

Also, the section of sentence that I redacted from the NCES statement said, “…and 71% of college graduates…” Can you put that together Paul? It’s saying that 71% of college grads are not proficient in reading at their graduation, so yeah I’m okay with closing their doors also. Why, you ask? Because neither the public K-12 schools nor colleges are doing what they are paid to do.

(Report Comment)
fred smith May 13, 2011 | 9:24 p.m.

If you don’t mind paying for what you don’t get just throw YOUR money down the toilet and fail the kids in YOUR neighborhood. As for me I say close the schools, build something that really works and educate our children.

But what of the poor and underprivileged, what ever shall they do if we close public schools. Well for starters they won’t be locked in government funded youth detention facilities where they are assaulted, indoctrinated and generally failed by their so-called educators. Their parents will not be jailed for keeping them safely at home.

As to their needs numerous churches and other civic organizations would assure that opportunities be made for those unable to pay. They already do a great deal of it and they would do a great deal more. Americans would not allow their children to go uneducated.

Two hurdles however for private involvement in education are complacency and interference. First, the government schools were at one time tasked with educating our children and in their infancy they did a good job of it. The dominance of this formally proficient system has caused complacency in societies various institutions and individuals regarding responsibility to educate our young. Second problem, is the desire of state and federal governments and teacher unions to stick their noses into the efforts of private education. Most private concerns are loath to do battle with government/union forces.

That is why I suggest the elimination of compulsory education. Doing so would remove the power of government and unions to interfere with private education which would encourage private schools to organize. Such a process of transition would also allow time for parents to plan what to do with their children. There would not be masses of unattended children just loitering in the streets, at least no more than there already are. Also, until their numbers dropped off sufficiently, some public schools would continue to operate. Better yet, the government schoolteachers who actually can teach and are trapped in the government system might take over the schools in which they work transforming them into real places of learning. The dead weight, which is the majority, could be asked to leave.

(Report Comment)
fred smith May 13, 2011 | 9:25 p.m.

Paul said, “. I merely ask these questions because I believe in each case that when the whole is considered the alternative to a public system is worse.”

I do not believe you Paul. Either you have not considered all the alternatives or you are not being honest about your conclusions. The current failure of government schools to teach math, science, and reading. Their inability to protect our children from violence. The inability of states and cities to afford the bloated contracts negotiated by corrupt union’s i.e. Detroit. How this adds up to government/public schools being the best option to educate our children defies logic.

The building is fully engulfed in flames and it has burnt to the point the structural framework is compromised and it is a danger to the public. Buildings like that need to be torn down and new ones built. Likewise it is time to tear down government education and rebuild the education system in this country. Our children need for us to do no less.

(Report Comment)
Mark Foecking May 14, 2011 | 6:15 a.m.

fred smith wrote:

"Their parents will not be jailed for keeping them safely at home."

Except, in many cases when you're talking about problem students, they won't stay safely at home. They'll be out getting into trouble. Of course, they might be doing this anyway, but I wonder how many of them benefit by having the structure that school gives them, even if they don't otherwise learn there.

I don't know of any privately run detention centers, do you? Corrections has entirely been a function of government, both for accountability reasons and because their "customers" typically don't have a lot of money or earning power.

Private schools perform better because their students are often more advantaged, have greater parental oversight and involvement, and the school has more control over the students they accept and keep. I doubt private schools would perform much better than public ones if they had the mix of students that a typical public school does.

DK

(Report Comment)
Ellis Smith May 14, 2011 | 6:48 a.m.

"Private schools perform better because their students are often more advantaged, have greater parental oversight and involvement, and the school has [more] control over the students they accept and keep."

Correct, and you have just stated the rationale for having and patronizing private schools, and why there are parents who are by no means wealthy but who are willing to in effect "pay double" in an effort to obtain the best education they can for their children.

A big factor is "greater parental oversight and involvement," which in many private schools is NOT optional on the parent's part. You sign your kid up, you sign YOURSELF up too.

(Report Comment)
frank christian May 14, 2011 | 8:59 a.m.

Mark F. - "I doubt private schools would perform much better than public ones if they had the mix of students that a typical public school does."

Before the advent of socialism in our country and educational system, the same "mix of students" were taught in public schools as is the case now. Big difference being the infusion of money and regulation from our revered Federal Gov't. Maybe bigger difference - students were deemed responsible for their actions. If unable to follow the simple rules of attendance and obedience they would be Expelled, not suspended for a day or week, coddled, studied,or left to continually disrupt the effort of teacher and pupils to use the time to educate.

After expulsion the student may or may not have come in contact with our "corrections" system. They knew that their actions had caused the contact and that the experience would not be a pleasant one. In my opinion All students knew the simple rules that they had to follow and expulsions were far fewer than today.

Private schools and Home Schooling are more sought today,not so the student will receive an "elite" education, but so that the student can be educated at all.

(Report Comment)
fred smith May 14, 2011 | 10:27 a.m.

["Their parents will not be jailed for keeping them safely at home."]

“Except, in many cases when you're talking about problem students, they won't stay safely at home. They'll be out getting into trouble. Of course, they might be doing this anyway, but I wonder how many of them benefit by having the structure that school gives them, even if they don't otherwise learn there.”

“I don't know of any privately run detention centers, do you?”

Mark, you appear to be making a similar assumption as Paul, that is to suggest that our ‘schools’ are really just daycare centers or as you say “detention centers.” If they are indeed either then that alone is sufficient reason to end the farce and close the doors.

Also, the children who would not stay safely at home are likely the ones who don’t go to school now or bully and assault others when they do. What’s the difference if they do it on the parent’s time or the schools? None!

Besides, why do you think private options would not be made available? The American public pays billions of dollars every year to educate the youth in this country and you think just because we close the ‘government detention/daycare facilities’ that parents won’t care about their children? Billions of dollars are given away in this country every year to private causes that benefit children hospitals, cancer research, summer camps, make-a-wish, scouting programs etc and you don’t think the same people who donate to that would donate to private schools?

I feel certain that moor people would be willing to give towards a working private school system, just consider all the private donations to colleges and universities around the country, than to the current system of detention/daycare facilities. With the taxes people would save, I know schools are the largest part of my property taxes, they would have more to give to private schools and they would.

There would be no lack of affordable private schools for people to send their children and sufficient scholarships would be made available to the needy. But the face of education would also change in very major way besides removing government influence. Perhaps, for example, we would no longer educate children who did not want to be there past 6th or 7th grade. Teach them basic reading, writing and math, a little history and send them on their way. Allow them to enter apprenticeships or private vocational schools.

(Report Comment)
fred smith May 14, 2011 | 10:28 a.m.

This arcane system of forced indoctrination when the kids so not want to be there is absurd. Compulsory education has its roots in this country with British rule in the 1700’s and it was again reestablished in the 1830’s well after the Revolutionary War. Its time has come and gone and we need to bring education into the 21st century. Lining kids up in neat little rows and expecting them to pay attention to the over paid government hack at the front of the room is laughable.

One last point, ‘teachers’ love to blame the lack of parent involvement as the main source of problem in the classroom. Well first, these ‘teachers’ have control of the students for 6 hours a day, 5 days a week, nine months of the year therefore they need to admit that their influence is also a large part where the students learn their behavior. It’s the old TV commercial argument, either advertisement influences the public or it does not. Well either a teacher can impact a child’s life or they can not. If they can then they too are responsible for the student’s behavior in the classroom.

Have you ever noticed that some teachers are better able to control their class than others? You could make some improvements in government schools by removing all teachers who cannot control their classroom. Oh yeah, I forgot, the worthless trouble-making unions won’t allow it. Which is a very good reason for closing government school altogether.

But still, all I want is a law that ends compulsory education because with that I am confident that government schools would die a natural death and the country would be better off.

(Report Comment)
Ellis Smith May 14, 2011 | 4:46 p.m.

Actually, Fred, the problems posed by public school systems are now being solved continuously on a family-by-family basis. Where it's possible to do so, families are "walking." Specific remedies depend upon what is available as an alternative, which is not going to be the same at all locations.

What has the public sector establishment worked up is that those parents and their children who are bidding goodbye to public school education are the very parents and children the public system can least afford to lose. And they know it!

I see no reversal of this trend; in fact it may accelerate.

(Report Comment)
frank christian May 14, 2011 | 5:31 p.m.

Our Government is in no way helping (not news, I know). I get choked thinking about the TV clip of the Washington D.C. *lottery* which determined which kids would be allowed to attend the new Charter School, which was just opening there. The black mother, in abject despair, tears rolling down her cheeks, because her young teen daughter's name was not drawn. She pointed at her daughter and exclaimed,"she can't even read her name!"

This proves, of course, we aren't spending enough money!

(Report Comment)
Ellis Smith May 15, 2011 | 6:56 a.m.

How many Senators, Congress persons, staffers, members of government agencies, lobbyists (we must DEFINITELY include lobbyists!) etc. send their progeny to D. C. Public Schools? Not many! Of course one way to get around that and still say you're sending your kids to public schools is to live in the nicer D. C. suburbs (Maryland, Virginia). Some of those districts are fairly good.

Frank, I too feel empathy for that poor woman, but I am amazed by her apparent naivety. Even if the daughter could read her own name, is it presumed that all she needs to do is win the lottery and everything will be just fine? Brings a whole new meaning to "blind faith."

(Report Comment)
Mark Foecking May 15, 2011 | 7:20 a.m.

fred smith wrote:

"This arcane system of forced indoctrination when the kids so not want to be there is absurd"

What kid knows what's best for them? I'd imagine most wouldn't want to go to a private school either - I sure didn't. I would have gotten swatted if my parents caught me cutting class, though, and after it was over I recognized the value of sticking it out and doing well.

"and expecting them to pay attention to the over paid government hack at the front of the room is laughable."

For what teachers have to study, know, and in many cases, put up with, I wouldn't say they are overpaid. I think you're just letting your general hatred of government show. Teachers come in a wide range of competence and motivation just like in any othert field, and I don't think private schools have any monopoly on good (or bad) teachers.

"Well either a teacher can impact a child’s life or they can not. If they can then they too are responsible for the student’s behavior in the classroom."

It's not either/or. Both parents and teachers are responsible for the conduct of students, and one really can't do the job without the other.

"You could make some improvements in government schools by removing all teachers who cannot control their classroom"

We've taken away a lot of the tools that teachers used to have to control classes, and yes, the problem is far worse in public schools. However, I have no problem with expelling disruptive students. Only trouble is, without education, they'll likely end up in prison, costing Joe Taxpayer a lot more than it would cost to keep them in school.

Unfortunately, there is a level of "day care" involved in public (and private) schools. I suspect that any attempt tto allow kids of working parents to not attend school would be met with very heavy parental resistance. This is usually the reason cited for not going to four day weeks - it's hard on the parents. Good luck changing that.

DK

(Report Comment)
frank christian May 15, 2011 | 8:29 a.m.

Ellis - I suspect the black mother, as well as her mother, etc. was "taught" in the D.C. system and the lottery could have given the kid, what none of the others, had, a chance to win, a chance to learn.

Didn't they (unions, etc.), try to get the Charter School funds shut down?

(Report Comment)
Paul Allaire May 15, 2011 | 2:37 p.m.

"The NCES states that, “… 95.4% of high school graduates … cannot read proficiently.” But hey, we just need to spend another couple of billion, right Paul?"

Wow, that sounds like a sensational statistic. But it also is a little believable seeing as how you inferred that I had an opinion regarding that. Or this:

"Will a four-day week fix that? How about, I don’t know, another $100 billion?"

Maybe they should have spent a hundred billion on YOUR reading ability. I merely responded to your assertion that school systems should be dismantled. I made no mention of the four day week and also made no mention of funding levels.

"Mark, you appear to be making a similar assumption as Paul, that is to suggest that our ‘schools’ are really just daycare centers or as you say “detention centers.”"

Show me where I wrote that which resembles your statement.

(Report Comment)
fred smith May 16, 2011 | 11:30 a.m.

Paul said, “Show me where I wrote that which resembles your statement.”
Paul the following is where I believe your were implying the daycare situation. If that is not what you meant perhaps you could clarify.... ”what do you think should become of those who cannot afford to hire a private tutor or send their children to a private school …Do you think it would be a good thing to have uneducated youths and later uneducated adults [everywhere people congregate?”]
“I made no mention of the four day week...” I mentioned the four day week as that is the topic of the article upon which this thread is based.
Mark said, “For what teachers have to study, know, and in many cases, put up with, I wouldn't say they are overpaid. I think you're just letting your general hatred of government show.”
No Mark, I have no general hate for government. I understand government to be a necessary and beneficial entity. Also, I hate nobody or any group in particular but I do hate being lied to. I believe that teachers unions in general have lied concerning the education of our children. I believe such lies are evident in that every time unions demand more pay, easier workloads etc all for the ‘benefit of our children’, academic performance either fail to improve or decreases. And I am tired of it.
Furthermore teachers are part of the PROBLEM they are not part of the solution. When is the last time you saw teachers stand on the side of the parents? It has been my experience that they stand shoulder to shoulder with union leadership. When teachers break ranks with their union leaders and take a stand for the students and parents then I will commend them for doing the right thing.

(Report Comment)
fred smith May 16, 2011 | 11:30 a.m.

Mark said, “What kid knows what's best for them?” You are asking the wrong question Mark, the question is who knows what’s better for the child the parents or the teachers? The correct response is the parent/s. Yet, in classrooms all over this country teacher’s work to destroy parent authority then feign discouragement at the lack of parent involvement. If teachers want parents involved then I suggest they not undermine parent authority from the front of the classroom.
How many stories have there been regarding a teacher not allowing a student to: hang their painting in the classroom, read the story they wrote, wear their favorite shirt or a million other things that parents have supported but teachers deny? Or how many stories have there been regarding inappropriate books, teacher actions, lessons etc in the classroom that go against the parents standards and code of conduct? Yet, these abuses continue and every time they occur they undermine parental authority. For teachers to then lament the lack of parental involvement is hypocritical at best.
Mark said, “It's not either/or. Both parents and teachers are responsible for the conduct of students, and one really can't do the job without the other.”
First parents are responsible for their children. Second, teachers are responsible for their own actions. Whenever their actions, that of the teachers, is out of line with the parents code of conduct for their child then it is the teacher who then needs to conform or leave. In a private school I and the other parents could demand that bad teachers be fired. In government school the unions regularly defend the indefensible in teacher action.
Mark said, “I suspect that any attempt tto allow kids of working parents to not attend school would be met with very heavy parental resistance.” I am not suggesting parents not send their children to school. I’m suggesting that the government has no right to require parents send children especially when the schools provided by the government are wholly inadequate. Kids go to school today only to NOT learn how to read, NOT learn math, NOT learn science, NOT learn history etc. But they ARE frequently injured in fights, ARE subjected to amoral philosophies, ARE taught to put condoms on bananas, ARE taught that their American traditions such as Christmas, Thanksgiving, Easter, traditional marriage, hunting, competing, winning, etc are wrong. No parent should be punished for keeping their child away from such a place even if it means the child will spend a period time away from education.

(Report Comment)
Paul Allaire May 16, 2011 | 11:54 a.m.

Fred, at some point people will advance past the age where they have any obligation to attend school. The question I asked was whether you would rather them have at least a cursory education at that point in time or little to none.

(Report Comment)
Jack Hamm May 16, 2011 | 12:14 p.m.

"Kids go to school today only to NOT learn how to read, NOT learn math, NOT learn science, NOT learn history etc. But they ARE frequently injured in fights, ARE subjected to amoral philosophies, ARE taught to put condoms on bananas, ARE taught that their American traditions such as Christmas, Thanksgiving, Easter, traditional marriage, hunting, competing, winning, etc are wrong."

Calm down, take a breath and a step back, and come join us in reality please (If you keep hearing the crazy voices turn off Fox news).

BTW, violence in schools has been declining for a very long time.

http://youthviolence.edschool.virginia.e...

Education is a public good; it is not just for the benefit of the child. When a person is uneducated they are a less productive worker, a less informed citizen and more likely to be a criminal. Fred I can not think of a better example of why we need compulsory education then people like you.

(Report Comment)
Jimmy Bearfield May 16, 2011 | 12:24 p.m.

Fred mentioned reading but not writing, which I would add to the list. To wit:

"When a person is uneducated they [plural pronoun referring to a singular antecedent] are a less productive worker, a less informed citizen and more likely to be a criminal. Fred [,] I can not [cannot] think of a better example of why we need compulsory education then [than] people like [such as] you."

(Report Comment)

Leave a comment

Speak up and join the conversation! Make sure to follow the guidelines outlined below and register with our site. You must be logged in to comment. (Our full comment policy is here.)

  • Don't use obscene, profane or vulgar language.
  • Don't use language that makes personal attacks on fellow commenters or discriminates based on race, religion, gender or ethnicity.
  • Use your real first and last name when registering on the website. It will be published with every comment. (Read why we ask for that here.)
  • Don’t solicit or promote businesses.

We are not able to monitor every comment that comes through. If you see something objectionable, please click the "Report comment" link.

You must be logged in to comment.

Forget your password?

Don't have an account? Register here.

advertisements