Ravenwood - 10/14/02 10:33 AM
Only in California. You may or may not be aware of a growing movement to address the backpack weight problems for our nation's children. Apparently a bunch of California whiners have been griping about their kids having to carry heavy books around from class to class and home each day after school. In response, California has passed a new law limiting text book weight, and Sun Valley High School in Ramona, has begun issuing books on CD-ROM and pushing for kids to do all their work on computers.
I can hear next year's gripes already. First of all, not all kids can afford to have a good computer at home. No problem, the state can simply issue them and raise taxes to pay for it.
Well, what about the eye strain and myopia that increase as a result of staring at a computer monitor. No problem, the state can simply issue quality 21" state of the art flat screen monitors, and raise taxes to pay for it. Kids could also be enrolled in state funded eye care insurance plans. That should further the nationalized health care agenda to boot.
Remember folks, California drives the American economy. Text-book manufacturers aren't going to print a California-edition, so books in your state are going to change as well. Also, New Jersey is following closely behind their liberal cousin with their own text book legislation.
Meanwhile, opponents of the new legislation offer up some common sense, something that is rare in both California and New Jersey. First of all, lets try putting lockers back into schools. Rolling backpacks also seem like an easy enough solution. Despite what some anti-textbook people are saying, cheap rolling backpacks can be purchased for $20. Also, teaching kids to use BOTH straps of a backpack might help as well, even if does make them look like a 'dweeb'.
All of this pampering and nannyism is making me worry about the future of this country. Could we have liberated Europe in WWII with people that had grown up whining about every little thing?
"Sarge, my rifle is too heavy. Do I have to carry all these bullets around with me?"
Okay, this is an issue! First, most kids get those rolling suitcase-style backpacks...RIDICULOUS!
Then, my neighbor is telling me the requirements for her daughter to graduate from high school now includes a PRESENTATION and DOSSIER. Um...we are no longer raising kids....we are raising little corporate executives. These children now have to present papers to a board, a give a visual presentation, present a résumé (which must include community service.....near impossible considering that most kids have the average of 5 hours of homework each night!), and they have to prove they can use a damn computer.
There are groups that are funding computers for the kids who can't afford them. Do they also pay for internet access? I don't know. But, really, if these kids come from families too poor to have a computer, I'd think little things like food, shelter, clothing, etc. might be a bit more important.
The community in which I once worked was ranked the POOREST in the state. Yep. My hospital was in the lowest income city in California. Kinda sad, eh? And, we're worried about getting computers into homes? Let's rethink this.
Posted by: Da Goddess at October 14, 2002 7:05 PMAs utterly ridiculous as this issue sounds at first, it really has medical fact to support the concern. I don't believe the resolution is government legislation, but I do think parents need to be aware and resolve the issue with their local school boards. I have a daughter who in 7th grade brought homework home in every class (7) with a corresponding text book. Each book weighing on an average of 3 pounds per book. That's 21 pounds to and from school daily. She walked to school most of the school year. When she started complaining of back aches and her back pack was to heavy I thought the same as most; just an excuse, until I picked it up out of the middle of my living room floor one night. Granted, rolling book bags are a nice remedy, but I have 7 children. I would spend $140 a year just for rolling book bags on top of the $600 I spend for enrollment, $700 I spend for school clothes and $140 per month for school lunches. For some reason I think the schools can resolve this as simply as doing school work at school.
Posted by: Kris at October 14, 2002 11:02 PMKris, wouldn't that be ideal? Unfortunately, they pack the day so full of things that kids can't even get up to go to the bathroom during class without missing something vital.
I'm all for easing the physical burdens...that wasn't my point. My point is that we don't give our kids a chance to be kids. They are taught, above all else, that the schedule is king. Multitasking is the only way to live. There aren't "fun" classes anymore. Just classes to make them more studious and serious people.
There's something wrong in with this world if we can't let our kids play, laugh, and be young.
Posted by: Da Goddess at October 14, 2002 11:42 PMHere's a radical thought: instead of uprooting a few hundred kids every 45 minutes, why not let them stay put, and LET THE TEACHERS go from class to class?
Yeah, I know the science teachers' labs, blah blah blah. Let the kids move THEN.
But why not keep all their books with them in one room, say, in lockers in the classroom?
>but I have 7 children. I would spend $140 a year just for rolling book bags
Kris, I'm gonna put on my insensitivity hat for a moment here, so don't take this personally.
If you have a whole gaggle of kids, you shouldn't be complaining about having to buy a $20 backpack for each of them. IMHO, if someone cannot afford to raise a kid, they shouldn't have one. Twenty dollars PER KID is not a lot considering all the other clothes and shit you need to buy them.
One of the most obscene articles I've ever read was in the Roanoke Times. A 15 year old inner city kid was happy as could be about having a baby because it meant she could go on welfare. As if that wasn't bad enough, her 15 year old friend was hoping to get pregnant so that she too could have a kid and start getting a welfare check.
Stories like that make me think that child bearing should be licensed. Why not? The state licenses the age-old practice of marriage, why not pregnancy? People should have to be qualified and know what their doing, ESPECIALLY when another person is involved.
Posted by: Ravenwood at October 15, 2002 7:51 AMSteve, are you trying to turn me on? I mean....you do know I'm fixed, right?
Posted by: Da Goddess at October 15, 2002 9:28 PMRavenwood,
I do take each one of my children very personally. I never said I could not afford to support my children. Our 7 kids are his, hers and ours. We have NEVER been on welfare in the 10 years we have been married and in fact my husband has supported my 2 children by a previous marriage because I have a worthless ex who wouldn't pay child support. But, with that said, does that mean the state, school, etc. can have unreasonable expectations of our children and possible harm them medically and I just sit idle and say well I can afford it so I won't try to change something that is wrong. This is no different then the Federal government mandating action from a state and expecting the state to pay for the Federal mandate. It's the same principle. If I want my child to have a rolling back pack then I will buy it for them but I will not pay for an imposed and unnecessary burden.
As far as requiring a license to bear children, if that should ever happen, we will no longer be living in America. Just because we require a license for marriage does not mean we have to continue to make wrong choices and further the wrongness by licensing parents. Many famous & influential people would never have been born if such an infringement on personal rights had been in place.
Posted by: Kris at October 16, 2002 8:35 PMKris,
>but I will not pay for an imposed and unnecessary burden.
My thoughts exactly. That is why making kids wear their backpacks properly and putting lockers back into schools seems like a better idea.
I mean, some schools are actually doing away with homework. When I hear that and then see those 'man on the street' interviews where people don't know basic facts, it makes me worry about our future.
As for licensing child-bearing, I am a libertarian. There are very few things I think should be licensed. I do find it amazing that states license the basic practice of marriage, something that is thousands of years old.
Actually, you can still get married without a license. It just won't be recognized by the state. Of course, I suppose atheists who don't want to get a license are SOL, but c'est la vie...
Posted by: Robert Bauer at October 16, 2002 11:51 PM(c) Ravenwood and Associates, 1990 - 2014
