So Rob Portman voted to confirm Betsy DeVos

[*bfine32*]

(02-08-2017, 12:10 AM)TheLeonardLeap Wrote: Which would lead to parents killing their mentally challenged, or just a little slow children, because they couldn't afford to keep them alive.

Sound plan, bfine.

That's almost as good of a plan as teachers having their pay based off their students results. That worked out terribly, with teachers falsifying test scores to make up for their stupid students.



That kind of idea only works if you're operating under the assumption that all children have the exact same potential, which simply isn't true. There are dumb kids. There are smart kids. Not a popular thing to say out loud, but it's true. Some kids no matter how much you try and spend time, will just never be smart. Some kids no matter how little you try and spend time, will be smart. Life isn't fair that way, but pretending otherwise is how you get things like No Child Left Behind, and mass standardized testing that teachers have to then teach to the test.

- - - - - - - - - - -

That's not even touching the fact that once they become middle schoolers+, they might actually become aware that they can control their parents/teachers income by behaving like little shits.

How would you feel about having your income tied to how much or how little a 13-year-old wants to rebel?

Mentally challenged or "a little slow" kids would compete against their own population; as would all kids' as they currently do. But you do solidify the special interest over the common interest mentality that many feel is handicapping us as a society. You don't have to be "smart" to earn good grades. 

As to the kids controlling their parents stance: You reap what you sow.

I would be totally fine with my income being tied to my child's behavior; as it makes me responsible for his or her results.