Tuesday, January 12, 2010
They never, never, never, never learn
Each year the educationists move to a new set of euphemisms because the kids mysteriously managed to understand the previous set of euphemisms.
Kids always know who's poor and rich, who's smart and dumb. Piling on euphemisms only makes life easier for bullies because the teachers, unable to talk plain English, lose their credibility as leaders.
And that's the real point, of course: not to confuse the kids, but to destroy authority.
But really now, "at hope"? This one is so silly that even academics won't be able to say it with a straight face. ¶ 11:18 AM
SEATTLE — Decades ago, poor children became known as “disadvantaged” to soften the stigma of poverty. Then they were “at-risk.” Now, a Washington lawmaker wants to replace those euphemisms with a new one, “at hope.”
Democratic State Sen. Rosa Franklin says negative labels are hurting kids’ chances for success and she’s not a bit concerned that people will be confused by her proposed rewrite of the 54 places in state law where words like “at risk” and “disadvantaged” are used.
Each year the educationists move to a new set of euphemisms because the kids mysteriously managed to understand the previous set of euphemisms.
Kids always know who's poor and rich, who's smart and dumb. Piling on euphemisms only makes life easier for bullies because the teachers, unable to talk plain English, lose their credibility as leaders.
And that's the real point, of course: not to confuse the kids, but to destroy authority.
But really now, "at hope"? This one is so silly that even academics won't be able to say it with a straight face. ¶ 11:18 AM
