What's the difference?

1st instance - "Crazy Joe," principal of Eastside High as seen in the
movie Lean on Me, denies troublemakers their perceived right to take a
standardized exam at the expense of disrupting school before exam time
rolls around.

2nd instance - Educators from several states around the country don't
both to report minority standardized exam scores. It is as if these
students were not in school at all.

What's the difference in the 2 instances above? The difference is
that, in the 2nd instance, the liberal educational entrenchment
eliminated the standardized scores for the purpose of keeping the money
flowing from Washington. In the 1st instance, the principal did it to
create a learning environment for those students who wanted to learn.

Understand that difference and you will have gained some insight into
the modus operandi of pubic education. Follow the money trail and
forget the "it's for the children" malarkey.

The NUMBER of students in school matters. Drops in attendance leads to
decreased funding. It also means some kids are not being exposed to
the liberal dribble brainwashing that accompanies feminist-dominated
education.

Opinions wrote:
1st instance - "Crazy Joe," principal of Eastside High as seen in the
movie Lean on Me, denies troublemakers their perceived right to take a
standardized exam at the expense of disrupting school before exam time
rolls around.

The movie was entertainment, and was believed to NOT portray things
exactly as they occurred.

There are other ways it could have been handled.

2nd instance - Educators from several states around the country don't
both to report minority standardized exam scores. It is as if these
students were not in school at all.

Yep. Just like Joe's ejected students.


What's the difference in the 2 instances above? The difference is
that, in the 2nd instance, the liberal educational entrenchment
eliminated the standardized scores for the purpose of keeping the money
flowing from Washington. In the 1st instance, the principal did it to
create a learning environment for those students who wanted to learn.

And that had nothing to do with the flow of education dollars?

My, you are naive.

Understand that difference and you will have gained some insight into
the modus operandi of pubic education. Follow the money trail and
forget the "it's for the children" malarkey.

How about YOU do the same.

And while you are at it tell us how to run a school system without money.

The NUMBER of students in school matters. Drops in attendance leads to
decreased funding.

That's what Joe accomplished in one fell swoop.

It also means some kids are not being exposed to
the liberal dribble brainwashing that accompanies feminist-dominated
education.

Yeah, they are learning so much on the street, like how to shoot up,
shoot other people, and shoot right into a lifetime of crime and jail.

Joe gave up on them.

There's nothing heroic in that.

But it's consistent with uncaring twerps such as you.

0:-


--
"Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what
to have for lunch. Liberty is a well armed lamb
contesting the vote." - Benjamin Franklin