Some of the comments are priceless. http://consumerist.com/2011/03/mother-sues-preschool-because-kid-might-not-get-into-harvard.html
I'd like to point out to PapaG and the other bashers of public teachers that this is a PRIVATE SECTOR preschool that charges $19,000.00 per year tuition. And they apparently provide their 4 year olds with a 2 year old level of education. This is why any modern government must provide the basics like education and healthcare. Because the private sector is driven by greed and built on deceit, and cannot be trusted to provide fair value to citizens.
Yes. What's the profit rate on that preschool, 1000%? Although in my opinion anyone who is stupid enough to pay $19K for babysitting kind of deserves what they get. Plenty of fault on both sides here. barfo
I think (though I certainly don't want to speak for him) that he might say "I can choose to send my kid to 19k school, or choose to send my kid to compulsory public education". Personally, I can choose to pay to take my 1y/o to French-speaking playtimes, or choose to pay to take her to Chuck E. Cheese, or choose to take her for free to the mall public playground. If enough people say "I'm not paying 19k per year of babysitting" (which actually isn't bad for babysitting) then they'll either drop their prices or go out of business. It's the matter of the teachers' union in WI FORCING the people to pay their salaries/benefits/retirement, without the people even having the option of saying "I'm not paying some teacher $X with $Y in health benefits and $Z in retirement." I don't see how this is difficult to understand. I can see if you disagree with the implementation and think that public school teachers' ulnions should be able to charge whatever they want and make the people pay it, but I can't see how you can disagree with the basic premise that THAT's the problem, not what some babysitting rich-guy preschool charges.
Who gives a crap? The bottom line is that any person who sues a pre school, stating it has ruined their 5 year olds chance to get into an Ivy league school has serious (and I mean serious) mental health issues.
That's not the problem, because that didn't happen. The people of Wisconsin elected representatives, those representatives entered into a contract with the teachers on behalf of the people of Wisconsin. There was no 'FORCING' involved. Maybe there was bad judgment - if so the remedy is to vote out the offending representatives. Maybe there was corruption, in which case the remedy is to prosecute the corrupt officials. Maybe the voters in Wisconsin aren't very bright, in which case the remedy is, ironically, education. But to pretend like the teachers somehow unilaterally imposed their contract on the state - that just ain't the truth. barfo
Well, that's a rather silly tangent. Plus, the point is the parents willingly shelled out the money, while also paying for the slugs in the public schools as well. What an incredibly bad thought-out post. I was just happy if my kids came home from pre-school without bite marks from some little spaz. Plus, the pre-school can't help it if the parents have a dumb kid, can they? You can't raise IQ...
Note to parent: If your child is still learning shapes and colors at the age of four, she's likely not getting into Harvard University.
So true. Also, how about not farming out your 'genius' to a pre-school. This is the definition of a frivilous lawsuit. The parents should be thrown in jail for being stupid and wasting time for the court system.
You don't pay $19k for babysitting you pay $19k to keep your kids away from poor children, who are often riddled with disease and teh ghey!
Looks to me like the same situation as WI: the state entered into a contract, and now regrets it. The union is holding them to the contract they signed. That isn't unreasonable behavior in my opinion. The solution to these problems is to not sign contracts you will later regret. If you buy more car than you can afford, is it the car dealers fault? If you buy more real estate than you can afford, is it Maris61's fault? If you buy more Brandon Roy than you can afford, is it Brandon's fault? If you buy more education than you can afford, is it the teachers fault? barfo
Seems like a false-advertising suit to me: If the school promised one thing, and delivered another, then there's a legitimate claim there.
Age-specific at that age *is* playing with finger paint... learning to following instructions... not peeing your pants etc... If his mom keeps wasting money on stupid shit he won't have to worry about trying to go to an Ivy league school.
If I lease a car, and can't afford it anymore, they take the car back. I don't pay anymore. If I buy a house and can't afford it, they take the house back. I don't pay anymore. Brandon Roy isn't worth antitrust legislation to the NBA. They'll keep paying him.
Really? I've never leased a car, so I don't know, but I wouldn't have thought you were allowed to just walk away from a lease by just turning over the car. I would think there would be some penalty assessed, if not the entire rest of the payment schedule. Yes, but see, in that scenario you don't get to keep the house. In the case of WA and WI, the state is saying "I'm gonna keep the car and the house, and I'm just gonna smaller payments, because I now think I was overcharged". You don't get to do that in real life, and you certainly don't get to pretend like it is all the bank/car dealers fault. barfo
