CB>TC>CB>I think we're getting dangerously close to arguing politics here, 
ot
  >TC>>educational issues, so I'll make this brief.  I can't think of a 
program
  >TC>>run by public sector agencies or private sector businesses that runs
  >TC>>flawlessly, and that includes the free lunch program run by schools 
nd
  >TC>>largely funded by the federal government.  I don't believe anyone
  >TC>>running such a program could satisfy every critic's demand that only 
the
  >TC>>*truly needy* (is there just one definition of truly needy?) be 
erved.
  >TC>
  >TC>I would think ethics more than politics.  The education system should
  >TC>promote ethical behavior and allowing individuals to cheat the system
  >TC>IMO does not follow that line of reasoning.
CB>Must be I got my Tom's mixed up - I could have sworn it was *you* who
  >once wrote that schools ought not be teaching moral values - that was
  >the job of the parents.  Can you explain these contradictory positions?
I would very much prefer the schools not teach morality in either
direction.  Teaching a child it is OK to be a thief is not my idea of
proper education, but then that could be a cultural difference.
CB>TC>In the US we seem to equate X number dollars to the term needy.
CB>Seems logical to me - "needy" to me means lacking funds - what better
  >way to define it than by money?
I have met few truly needy people in recent years.  If you own a car,
have a TV or two with cable, buy the nicest cloths available, ect. your
not needy IMO.  By your definition of needy we are all needy.  My
employer would be needy in his eyes as he never has enough money.
CB>TC>This is true in the free lunch program also and remember this was
  >TC>just a provable example of waste and fraud in the education system.
CB>Can you explain further?  What do you mean, "This is true," - what is
  >true?  What was "just a provable example of waste?"
The free lunch program is a provable example of waste, as is head start,
and other title one programs.  Real long term benefit has yet to be
proven unless your talking to those making money providing the
services.
CB>TC>It could also be applied to educating illegal immigrants.  Everyone
  >TC>knows it goes on and that it takes tax dollars from legitimate
  >TC>citizens, yet by tolerance the behavior is further encouraged.  A few
  >TC>million here and there until it is finally realized  the cost is too 
grea
CB>Two points.  First, I am sorry - perhaps the problem is mine - but I
  >don't know what you're trying to get at in this entire section.  Second,
  >I have avoided all discussions of the illegal immigrant issue in this
  >echo as I have very mixed feelings about it that have very little to do
  >with education (off topic).
Let us see now.  The spending of BILLION's to EDUCATE illegal
immigrants is has little to do with education.  Your probably right as
the additional funds for American Citizens perhaps would not improve the
quality of education.  That being the case we need to be advocating
cutting educational funds to public schools since they don't need the
money anyway.  I don't think I will buy that concept.
___
 X QMPro 1.53 X All rising to a great place is by a winding stair.
--- Maximus 2.02
---------------