“One mother told me when she went with her 18 month son to his medical checkup, and he was not in daycare. They said, ‘Oh, your son is not in daycare? But he has to go to daycare. He needs that and you need to work.’”
h/t EBD
“One mother told me when she went with her 18 month son to his medical checkup, and he was not in daycare. They said, ‘Oh, your son is not in daycare? But he has to go to daycare. He needs that and you need to work.’”
h/t EBD
Then ask them why they expect that mandatory government daycares and schools will do any better for non-aboriginals.
They will only say “the system has to be repaired not thrown out.”
Apparently over 100 years of experimentation isn’t proof for a leftie.
V 10,
Very good point!
I remember the discussions about “National Daycare” when the Libs were in power with the help of the NDP.
I lived in Victoria at the time, and I recall overhearing some University of Victoria students at the “Cafe Fantastico” (real name of the place) having this same discussion. Far from being a needed social service to ease the burden of working mothers, the actual point of National Daycare according to these students (from the Young Liberals)based upon what I overheard was as follows:
1. Take kids away from aboriginal parents for a few hours each day so that these kids would learn how to read and write…and also realease them from the poverty of the reserve, while rescuing them from sexual assault and drunkeness which is so prevelant amongst aboriginals.
2. Get black kids away from their parents so that they would not be 100% exposed to violence, crime, and drugs. Oh..added bonus, they wouldn’t learn to speak with a Jamaican accent.
3. Teach all kids the “right morals”…cough cough…etc..etc..
You get the picture.
I never said anything, but one thought did cross my mind while these useless boneheads were discussing the issue of getting aborignal kids out of their homes and away from their parents. “That’s been tried before..and it didn’t work out very well”..
Good intentions eh?
As K. Shaidle would say, ‘You aren’t smart enough to tell me how to live”..
God save us from the busybodies. Failing that….save yourself and don’t vote for these idiots.
The reservation schools were wrong because they broke down the basic integrity of the family unit and cut off the children from their long cultural heritage.
But, to reject public schooling completely, and instead suggest only home schooling is equally disastrous. That actually means that you support multiculturalism. I, for one, am strongly opposed to multiculturalism.
Rejecting public schooling in an immigration nation, which is Canada, to only have home schooling, would in many cases set up a continuation of old country beliefs, where one ethnic or religious group, which has a long history of antagonism towards another group, would continue that perspective. So, if we did this in Canada, we’d have instead of children recognizing their common humanity, we’d have only the different ancient cultural histories acknowledged and those of Others, rejected.
It can’t be all or nothing. In some cases, home schooling is better, both for the bright and the slow child. In other cases, it can breed fear, uncertainty and hostility towards others – eg, the Ontario family that reject gender differences, have their little boy in pink and pigtails and he is afraid to mingle with other children. He’s confused and so are the other children; home schooling isn’t helping him.
I suggest a dose of realism rather than ideology would help in this debate.
But, to reject public schooling completely, and instead suggest only home schooling is equally disastrous. That actually means that you support multiculturalism…
Public schools vs. home school aren’t the only options. Public schools are a waste of time and money.
Anyway, home schooling doesn’t mean you support multiculturalism, no matter if some idiot professor does think she should engineer others lives.