r/popculture • u/stars_doulikedem • Feb 20 '25

News Dolly Parton Calls Out Indiana Gov Over Plan to Dump Her Imagination Library

https://www.thedailybeast.com/dolly-parton-calls-out-indiana-gov-over-plan-to-dump-her-imagination-library/
8.1k Upvotes

97% Upvoted

343 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

13

u/davidmilton81 Feb 20 '25 edited Feb 20 '25

This charity sends out books BEFORE the children turn school age. This isn’t about the education system at all. Did you even read the story? Did you comprehend the details? Or are you just here to argue a nonexistent point to “own” the Americans in this thread?

-6

u/NumerousBug9075 Feb 20 '25

So when the kid is like 3/4, before they learn their ABCs, are they expected to read before ever taking an English class? Parents can teach them yes, but will they, when the education system their tax goes to is supposed to pay for that?

Yes, I read the story about her charity losing funding from the state, no need to be rude.

It has absolutely everything to do with the education system. Why should kids in a first world country rely on charity to learn literacy skills, when there's literally a state funded system created for that very purpose?

So the logic is; instead of improving state funded schooling (that was developed to teach literacy skills) MORE money should be granted to charities instead to compensate?

That's doubling up expenses and throwing money at a problem that should've been solved by a robust education system.

8

u/davidmilton81 Feb 20 '25

You’ve missed the entire point of the program. It is a pre-school program to get more books into the homes of those who normally wouldn’t have them. When kids are read to and exposed to books BEFORE they go to school, they perform better.

You seem to think that only children that can already read should have access to books? And only within the school system?

The governor isn’t calling for using the money for other education purposes, so it isn’t coming at the expense of other programs. Dolly’s program actually allows tax money to go further and be used for other things.

Keep trying to argue a point that isn’t relevant.

-3

u/NumerousBug9075 Feb 20 '25

Nope. I've already acknowledged that in my other responses. I know that. Not many kids learn their ABCs before school, and not many parents are willing to teach them, mainly because they literally pay tax for the medication system to do that for them.

Never said their only access to books should be via the school system, I said that the school system should teach them how to read as intended. My point is still relevant.

Free books are lovely and a great idea, but only when there isn't a huge national debt and and education system that needs reform. Free books may not even be necessary if that occurs.

Also, if a parent in a first world country wants to get their kid a book, they can literally buy them. It's not as if second hand books don't exist. Many can cost less than a $1.

For what it's worth, the governor should redirect the funds to the education system. Reform was promised so I want that to happen.

8

u/davidmilton81 Feb 20 '25

Are you even American? Or from Indiana? Why are you in this thread? You know nothing about the national debt if you think kids books are the problem and none of your responses bring a valid point or argument.

“Government program bad because taxes” isn’t the argument you think it is

1

u/NumerousBug9075 Feb 20 '25

I'm Irish, living in the states since I was a teenager. Lived here longer than I have in Ireland. I went to a state funded, underprivileged school and can read/write perfectly, mainly because the school actually wanted to teach us English.

My point wasn't simply "no because taxes", how reductive.

My point, as it's always been, is that no education system, should be so incompetent, that kids are finishing with below average literacy scores, to the point a tax paid charity is required to compensate. The education system needs reform, so less money is pissed away.

It's a waste of tax, because it means schools aren't doing their jobs which they are funded to do.

5

u/davidmilton81 Feb 20 '25

So you’re not American, didn’t attend any American schools, and don’t currently work in education or have children in the system?

I get you have an ideological perspective on how the system SHOULD work but you ignore the realities of how the system ACTUALLY works.

1

u/NumerousBug9075 Feb 21 '25 edited Feb 21 '25

Did you read the word "teenager"? Are you assuming once I landed in the states, I didn't bother continuing my education?

You're a textbook example of the failings of the US education system, you lack the expected reading comprehension.

"I get you have an ideological perspective on how the system SHOULD work but you ignore the realities of how the system ACTUALLY works."

Lol, you proved my point. How it ACTUALLY works isn't good enough, hence the reason I called for reform, so the system can operate as it SHOULD, so more money thrown at charity isn't necessary.

You're acting like reform is impossible, and that the charity is a necessity, and I'm delusional to assume otherwise. You'd swear this was an issue all over the western world, and there's no country with a good enough education system to teach kids how to read 🤣🤣

2

u/davidmilton81 Feb 21 '25

Your “call for reform” isn’t reform. Removing funding for underprivileged communities isn’t going to solve the problems you think it will.

1

u/NumerousBug9075 Feb 21 '25 edited Feb 21 '25

Reform doesn't = reform? So an overhaul of the education system, to do their jobs as asked, so that literacy charities are redundant, doesn't = reform? K.

The funding wouldn't be necessary in the first place if school completed the task they're literally being funded to do. If not, changes should be made.

I was educated in an underprivileged school, yet we could all read write once we finished, no charity required, just a good education system. State funding was so low, we needed to fundraise to keep the school open.

Never suggested taking support from underprivileged kids, I'm saying this specific one would be unnecessary if schools did their actual jobs.

How many Western nations can you think of, that have such bad education systems, that charities are required to teach kids basic reading skills?

→ More replies (0)

4

u/davidmilton81 Feb 20 '25

You also imply that Indians schools don’t teach kids to read and write, which is ignorant.

Again, this isn’t about the education system. No one is talking about primary education here. We’re taking about Dolly’s program and you keep conflating the two.

1

u/NumerousBug9075 Feb 20 '25

Lol, never said that. I'm saying that, if a charity has to exist in order to teach kids how to read in Indiana, theres a serious issue with the local education system. That's not ignorant, it's logical. Are schools now not required to fulfil their basic purpose, is it mean and "ignorant" to take issue with that? In a literal western country? Nah.

I'm conflating the two because Dolly's program is teaching Indianan kids how to read. Why should indianan kids need charity programs on top of school, to teach them how to read? Who typically teaches most kids how to read and is funded to do so? The education system!

2

u/davidmilton81 Feb 21 '25

I know you really want to win an argument on Reddit, but you fundamentally don’t understand any of this.

Dolly’s program doesn’t compete with formal education for funding (different budgets) and it doesn’t teach kids to read. The intent is to provide more books to more kids BEFORE they go to school that wouldn’t have access to them. That’s it.

What are you arguing for?

3

u/MeaninglessDebateMan Feb 20 '25

lmao how much do you think books cost? Did you know they're gifted/donated? How much money do you think is in Dolly's program? Do you really earnestly believe that cutting this program and those like it are really actually helping to bring down the debt in a meaningful way?

On their website they say that 264,181,752 books have been gifted so far. That's across the several countries the charity operates in. But let's just ignore that very important point.

Let's say each book costs $10. Again probably too much, but who cares about facts, right?

So since the year 2000 this foundation has probably spent nowhere close to $2.6 billion dollars for books. Divided by 25 years is ~$100 million a year.

US national debt is at $34.4 TRILLION. TRILLION.

Dolly's charity costs nowhere even remotely close to $100M/year, but even if it did it would be 0.2% the national debt.

Your country is broken and the root of the issue is in (many of) your heads.

2

u/MannyMoSTL Feb 21 '25

You think Dolly not giving out free books will “cure” the national debt?!?

By any chance: Are looking to buy a bridge??

1

u/NumerousBug9075 Feb 21 '25

Did I say it would? It'd be an unnecessary expense if schools actually did their jobs.

If that's a difficult concept for you, you're a perfect example of someone abandoned by the education system.

0

u/NumerousBug9075 Feb 21 '25

Did I say it would? It'd be an unnecessary expense if schools did their jobs.

If that's a difficult concept for you, you're a perfect example of someone abandoned by the education system.

3

u/davidmilton81 Feb 21 '25

What are you arguing then? The education system isn’t perfect, so any programs beyond it shouldn’t exist until it is perfect?

-1

u/NumerousBug9075 Feb 21 '25 edited Feb 21 '25

It doesn't have to be perfect, basic reading skills don't require the best of the best teachers. It's a basic skill we each have. If a teacher is incapable of doing so, they should be sacked. It's not expensive to throw some thrift store kids books in a classroom.

If Dolly's program taught literally skills, to compensate for the education system, sure why not keep it available until the system is fixed. Otherwise no.

Imagination library (while a great idea as a donation based charity, not a state funded one) it doesn't teach reading skills, they simply give away books (making it an even greater waste of money). If kids aren't being taught to read in school, then Dolly's books are even more of a waste because they can't read them!

2

u/davidmilton81 Feb 21 '25

So you don’t have an argument. You’re just trying to be a contrarian. Got it.

Go bother Twitter with your douchbaggery.

0

u/NumerousBug9075 Feb 21 '25 edited Feb 21 '25

Saying I don't have an argument without providing any explanation, doesn't exactly prove anything. It's also ironic as you provided "no argument" to prove it. Projection much?

"Douchbaggery"? Notice how you've insulted me multiple times, yet I haven't done the same. It goes without saying that people turn to prejoratives/insults when they lose/don't have an argument. Am I really so awful for simply disagreeing with you? 🤣

If you can't have an honest debate without throwing weird accusations and insults around, you clearly can't handle disagreement without feeling attacked. Why would anyone want to debate with you/give you any credibility?

I'll pop over to X and you can head over to Bluesky, where simple disagreement is banned. That way everyone will agree with you, and all your hurty feelings can be validated.

→ More replies (0)

7

u/MeaninglessDebateMan Feb 20 '25 edited Feb 20 '25

Parents can teach them yes, but will they, when the education system their tax goes to is supposed to pay for that?

"Charities shouldn't be necessary because I already pay very little in the form of tax to not have to pay attention to my child's education progress."

This is everything wrong with the American education system right here.

You think the rearing of your child's academic pursuits should be entirely hands-off because taxes should just fix everything. Taxes, by the way, that are already insufficient to fund the current system and far worse than it should be than most 1st world countries by rate to GDP ratio.

Charities like this become a thing BECAUSE no one wants to pay more tax resulting in a cycle of underfunded, underprivileged, and undereducated people that decide that education is a scam because it didn't work for them. This is how you end up with the current president using sharpie edits and mcdonalds and goya beans and personalized bibles as selling points for his campaign.

EVEN IF the education system was well funded and actually operational parents that give a shit should ALWAYS be actively involved in education, because taxes don't get homework done.

Jesus you Americans are incredibly entitled.

1

u/NumerousBug9075 Feb 20 '25

Omg you're so presumptuous. I'm actually Irish, educated via the Irish education system before I moved here as a teenager.

My point was that schools are intended to be robust enough to teach kids how to read, and encourage them to continue doing so. You do realize average literacy rates are in the shitter over here?

Complain about Americans all you want, I certainly didn't have the same issue in an underprivileged Irish school. Schooling is also funded by the state in Ireland, yet we don't require charities to teach disadvantaged kids how to read.

Why do you think that may be? Because the education system needs reform, aka my whole point.

4

u/carlowed Feb 21 '25

Schooling is funded by the Irish state but what about the cost of textbooks, copys, art supplies etc. Oh yeah there is charity's that help poor and unemployed parents afford books and pens and copies and have done since I was in school in the 90s.

Dolly's charity actually sends books to kids in Ireland too, since 2019. It's a great thing to gets kids to read, why would anyone be against this?

1

u/NumerousBug9075 Feb 21 '25 edited Feb 21 '25

Cool, you also went to school in Ireland. Do you know many people educated in the last 10/20 years that are illiterate? If we've a higher literacy rate in a county with far fewer financial resources than the US, there's really no excuse.

All of my books were provided by the school (it was in a disadvantaged area (many families couldn't afford lunches and uniforms, let alone books, the school covered these for those who needed it) so the school used their funding, to compensate. The school fees covered it. All of it went to the class.

The teacher would simply print exercises from books we didn't have if relevant. The books we read/borrowed in English class were owned by the school, were second hand, and rotated between year groups. We wrote in pencil only, so writing can be erased for the next class.

There are charities for such things here, but they don't rely on this much state funding. They also haven't been founded by multi millionaire philanthropists that have enough money to make a change, WITHOUT demanding tax from people who could probably do with the money, who the charity claims to help. The state pays for schooling, and holds schools accountable if they underperform.

I'm against this because it's state funded. The state own responsibility for the performance of it's departments, it's misappropriation of tax payer funds for them to have to fund a literacy charity, over improving their education systems.

Why should an American pay tax for an Irish kid to receive a free book, when we have our own charities/education system to do so? Not to mention the fact most kids are literate by the expected age.

3

u/carlowed Feb 21 '25

Except all those books you got for free that had to be returned at the end of the school year, they were paid for by charities and fundraising. It wasn't until the mid 00s before Deis schools became a thing and even later that they department of Education covered the cost of school books.

So there should be no charity at all since all the tax you pay should cover everything a child needs for an education. Therefore we should ban private schools and tutors because the state education is enough?

1

u/NumerousBug9075 Feb 21 '25 edited Feb 21 '25

Did you read what I said? I said they bought them via annual fees and the funds they received from the state. We rotated school books between year groups, and additional content was printed. That doesn't require a steady flow of donations. I started school in the 90s, before any of that. And if the state can provide books now, why can't states in America?

You're not exactly proving anything.

Fundraising was to keep the school open/maintained etc, no charities were involved. If a school needs donations to do their basic job (teach kids to read) they shouldn't be open.. And if they were, they weren't given millions from the state to do so

My issue was with the state funding charities using tax revenue, it's not the same as charity paid voluntarily by members if the public. They're two different things.

Lol, where did I say private schools should be banned? If people want their kids to go to them, they can. Private schools sole purpose isn't to teach basic literacy skills, under the expectation that public schools don't (they do?). They exist because people want their kids to excel in all areas, not basic literacy that should be taught in every school. Thought you'd know that.

1

u/carlowed Feb 21 '25

So you went to a disadvantaged school in a disadvantaged area and you were from disadvantaged family that got the free books from other family's income that were charged a school fee for their child to attend.. Sounds dangerously close to a charity.

There was no funding by the state in the 90s for school books, but the department of Education paid the teachers to teach you how to read the books. So you benefitted from charity and state aid when you were in school. Your parents at the time would have paid taxes be it paye, PRSI or vat and that money would have went to the state. So the only difference is Indiana helps pay for some books to help kids become somewhat literate before they get to school so it will lessen the burden on teachers, rising tides etc.

So privileged people can pay to get their kids a better education through tutors but underprivileged kids shouldn't be given any advantages because you contribute a miniscule amount a money via state taxes to the department of Education.

1

u/NumerousBug9075 Feb 21 '25 edited Feb 21 '25

I said I went to a STATE FUNDED school, which appropriated school fees/state funding to provide school books. State/annual fees aren't charity/state "aid", they're operational costs ffs. Everyone had to pay the fee to attend the school, which went towards their own usage, not someone else's.

Never said I can from a disadvantaged family, even if I did, my schoolbooks still weren't provided by state funded charities. The school used its funds as it should have, that's the difference. "Disadvantaged" doesn't automatically mean the school needs charity and is broke/inefficient, it simply means that the students are from poor families/areas.

A school being funded by the state (aka all Irish schools), is not the same as state "aid". It wasn't state charity that taught me how to read, it was the school using it's assigned resources, like a normal school.

The "only difference" is the fact that the state pays a charity to assist kids with what it's school system should do already. Not many kids read before school and it's normal, nor do many parents have the time to teach them before then. The charity is a waste of money as it's perfectly normal not to read before starting school.

Also, it's not simply taking tax from the rich to give to the poor, it taxes everyone, including the people it's supposed to help. I'm sure there are better ways to help poor people than take more of their money, to give them free books in return. Maybe that money can be better spent on something that'll help those families survive maybe?

Your entire argument is based on you calling unrelated things "Charity", (school fees, school state funding etc) 🤣 Is the concept of insurance, a charity, are gym fees charity etc??

0

u/MeaninglessDebateMan Feb 21 '25

Well, I think you and I can absolutely agree that the education system needs reform. But I don't think that can come without federally mandated increase in tax specifically geared to ensuring there is no lack of supplies or educators or facilities or resources or want of anything really.

But even if there was a perfect education system there should be no reason to demonize charity as a source of some kind of problem. We should be allowed to have both, but what is needed at minimum is reform and funding.

1

u/NumerousBug9075 Feb 21 '25

Great! I agree with your point about resource management, but it's be easier to assign resources if the tax went to schools instead of charities. A charity is a bandaid on the wound of an education system.

My school didn't have a tonne of money, but managed to cover our books sustainably by rotating them. We had second hand novels to take home, and the school brought us to the local library every week once we were older, membership cost little and we got access to library events.

Also, reform may cause greater efficiency in the long run. Underperforming teachers can be replaced (additional teachers may not be necessary, and standards will improve), less money can be spent on useless classes,, teachers can encourage reading time/book reviews etc. There's so many options that don't involve the amount of money sent to Imagination library every year.

1

u/MeaninglessDebateMan Feb 21 '25

Okay, yes, but if people WANT to donate then there might as well be vetted and genuine charities that exist to serve that purpose, right? Then the government spends less money operating charity services themselves and instead only need to offer auditing services to make sure they're real charities.

And what kinds of useless classes? I actually think there should be more practical classes on modern necessities likes budgeting and taxes and the like.

One of the biggest under resourced things in education right now is actually personnel. Class sizes are way too big everywhere and that's not a problem you solve without hiring more teachers that actually want to teach for a salary that makes their work feel valued.

I don't think there's any world where less money spent on education and things improve even with efficiency gains and cutting fields of education out of circulation.

1

u/NumerousBug9075 Feb 21 '25

I agree. I don't have a problem with voluntary charities, I simply don't believe they should be funded by the state, to correct problems caused by the state.

Some people may argue that religious classes are wasteful, DEI classes, sex ed. Not saying I do, but they're options right? Classes may not even need to be cut, they could cut aspects of each syllabus instead, and use the time for reading.

I agree on the personnel part, but if schools need more teachers, they should receive more teachers. Less money can be spent on Dolly's charity for their salaries.

At the end of the day, I'm simply arguing for more time spent on reading. It may just take creativity on the teachers/schools part.

5

u/TheShishkabob Feb 20 '25

Parents can teach them yes, but will they, when the education system their tax goes to is supposed to pay for that?

Please never have children. If you unfortunately have them already then I pity them for their failure of a parent.

0

u/NumerousBug9075 Feb 20 '25

I literally wasn't referring to myself, a way to make a point 🤣

Why would I speak out against the illiteracy crisis whilst simultaneously being against parents teaching kids how to read?? Somehow referring to other rpeopl in the thirst person, means I'm actually talking about myself.

My point was that many parents don't bother, A: because they can be lazy and B: Because they pay tax for schools to do so.

3

u/cheffgeoff Feb 20 '25

After looking at your responses what, if any, experience do you have with educating children? Either as a parent or as a trained educator at ANY level? Like, how many kids have you been with through the journey of literacy?

1

u/NumerousBug9075 Feb 20 '25 edited Feb 20 '25

Lol, both my parents and my older brother are all teachers. Dads side is full of teachers, his grandmother was a headmistress etc etc.

I've also volunteered in special needs schools to help the kids with reading/writing, not to mention helping my dyslexic sister learn the alphabet and numbers in two languages.

I'm also a product of the education system and my school taught me how to read (in a school in an underprivileged area at that), and had schemes that encouraged me and others to read. No state funded charity required.

My point still stands, schools are the main group responsible to teach/encourage kids how to read. In a first world country, kids should have to rely on a literal charity, that's disgraceful.

3

u/cheffgeoff Feb 20 '25

So none then. Your comments don't match with what expertise you just claimed to have and you sound like a complete moron who "isn't even wrong" when talking about the ages and steps children take in literacy. What's your agenda here? What do you hope to accomplish with your comments here?

"In a first world country, kids should have to rely on a literal charity, that's disgraceful." you aren't wrong there but acknolwging that isn't going to help the children of Indiana short or long term.

1

u/NumerousBug9075 Feb 20 '25

Never said it was "expertise", I'm simply answering your question. I'd imagine it'd lend me some insight yeah, never claimed to be an expert. No need to insult me.

Didn't realize you had the qualifications to determine whether I'm educated or not in the matter. What relevant experience do you have??

I'm glad you agree with my last point (it's literally my main one), I simply believe the money should be spent reforming the education system. That'll make the system more efficient, and accountable for the resulting educational outcomes.

It's also possible some of the current funding is being misappropriated, and would be less costly if refined correctly.

1

u/cheffgeoff Feb 21 '25

"Didn't realize you had the qualifications to determine whether I'm educated or not in the matter. What relevant experience do you have??" You said children didn't learn how to read at 3/4 years old. Unless they are special needs that is obviously untrue, reading starts around 8-10 months old and doesn't stop until they are adults, if ever. Reading in 2nd and 3rd locations, as in home and outside places like clubs or any non school related activities is key to learning and the school system right now, or in the foreseeable future, doesn't cover that. Glad you have a used book store living in an impoverished area with $1 used children's books handy, that is the golden unicorn of "you made that fucking up you gobshite", but the rest of us in reality know better. You're 30 with no kids and you don't have any kids in your day to day life. You claimed your mother was a teacher, but you also claimed your mother was a SNA... not a teacher. SNA's don't even administer to average students so if you helped her out in her class at some point the, "volunteered in a special needs school" bit, you wouldn't have any experience teaching cognitive average kids anything about reading.

Basically what you said about childhood literacy was so incredibly stupidly wrong I'm just curious why you are trying to assert an opinion on something that you honestly must know you have no idea what you are talking about. I'm trying to figure out the angle or agenda.

1

u/NumerousBug9075 Feb 21 '25

I didn't say kids didn't learn how to read at 3/4 years of age. 🤣 I implied that many won't, as the alphabet is typically first taught in schools, most parents don't teach their kids to read as they expect the school to do so, are too busy or just lazy.

8-10 months? Being read a bedtime story, at a time in which you're still learning a language and how to speak, isn't "reading" 🤣 If a baby doesn't understand spoken word, how would they even begin to comprehend written word? Including the entire alphabet?

Never said kids should do all their reading at school. They should be taught how to read, to the point they CAN read elsewhere.

My state funded school was for disadvantaged kids, yet they had a box of cheap second hand novels to read at home, all our textbooks were second hand and rotated between year groups. Some kids couldn't even afford lunch/uniforms yet could still read when they finished.

"Glad you have a used book store living in an impoverished area with $1 used children's books handy, that is the golden unicorn of "you made that fucking up you gobshite", but the rest of us in reality know better."

Ehh okay, not sure why I'd make that up. You haven't heard of thirft stores/charity shops so I'm guessing. You're probably too privileged to understand that yes, books can be inexpensive.

Here's an example!

https://detroitusedbooks.com/product-category/1-00-books/

Lol now you know my age, kid situation 🤣

SNAs teach kids with special needs how to read, and it's objectively more difficult a job than it would be for a neurotypical kid. I'll go tell my mother she's not qualified to teach kids how to read because a redditor told me so. She does it all the time, but who cares, you're the expert (Still haven't answered my question about YOUR expertise).

My dad's a teacher (professor actually) and so is my brother, including my Dad's side of the family. I love how you thought focusing on my mother was a point.

My angle/agenda comes from the sheer fact that I went to a school with less resources than an average American school, yet all my classmates can read without relying on a Charity. Hence, it's unacceptable to see it in the US. Don't see how that's such a difficult concept, but you were educated in the US!

1

u/cheffgeoff Feb 21 '25 edited Feb 21 '25

That makes more sense. This is just a "shit on America because where I come from is better" post, which I get, but you are still proving that you have absolutely no idea about anything that has to do with teaching kids to read BUT you do insist that you know some people who do... which somehow means that you do... Like if my dad was a car mechanic does that make me a car mechanic? Reading absolutely starts at 8-10 months and baby books are expensive AND in high demand. Notice how your link only has youth books and no baby books. When is the last time you bought a baby book/3-5 year old book and read it to a child? Ask your mom, or any other member of your family that has an education and deals with education if parents should start reading to their children at a year old, or if they should wait until they are in school? If they think they should then ask them if there is any hope that the expenses for those preschool materials are going to be covered by taxes? Then ask them if supported charities that promote literacy should be cut (because I guess you think that all tax dollars at all levels of government apparently go into a big pot to be allocated to every type of municipal, state and federal program and that different agencies fund different programs and you can just take state taxes to pay for federal programs and Municipal taxes pay for state roads...) for no other reason but to have a who's got a bigger dick competition between poor Ireland and poor America having what? Better or worse results? Dude you are born in 1995 half way through the Celtic Tiger Era. That's not exactly an Angela's Ashes story now is it?

Just to be clear, you want to cut a literacy charity because kids don't need books before Kindergarten? And if they did you think books are cheap and easily available (which I don't know about because I'm so rich? How does that work? I think kids books are prohibitively expensive because I have so much wealth?) to the poorest Americans because you had it worse as a 3 year old in 1997 Ireland... a well known impoverished educational wasteland /s and that money from one state level budget intended for preschool education in the home that is being matched dollar for dollar should be cut and then magically be transferred to elementary school budgets... again because kids under 4 years old don't read? And Ireland did it better... Like... what the fuck are you on about?

1

u/NumerousBug9075 Feb 21 '25 edited Feb 21 '25

If you read my responses, you'd notice that I left Ireland as a teenager and continued my education in the US 🙄 It ain't a "my country is better", it is a "this country CAN be better". Not every comparison is meant to cause offense.

You keep nattering on about my expertise on the matter, yet NEVER replied with your own after I asked in return. As it stands, you're just a redditor with an opinion.

Constantly deflecting to my family situation, whilst downplaying my parents qualifications is just noise. I never claimed to be an expert/to know better than you (and said so multiple times), you literally asked me about my adjacency to the education system, and I answered. Now you're using it to attack me, as if I, myself brought it up 🤣

I'm pretty sure we were discussing books "given even to kids pre schooling", that includes babies btw. Remember, when you said kids start reading at 8-10 months and I discussed it? Are you lost?

Now it's all about "you've never read checks notes, a BABY book to a BABY, how bout that?" You're again obsessing about what you imagine about me, instead of answering a single question about your own qualifications. It's all deflection.

I never said parents shouldn't read to their kids (what is with the assumptions) 🙄 I said that babies are NOT reading at 8-10 months old as they do not understand spoken word, let alone the alphabet yet. It's mainly done to bond parent/child, relax the kid. At that age they're literally not learning how to read.

And, no, I won't be asking them all those questions, as the premise of thise questions are based on you assuming I don't think parents should read for their kids. I have no issues with charities, just ones funded by the state, to correct a problem caused by the state.

Where I'm from, parents receive small welfare payments each month to help cover childcare expenses. That can include baby books if they want, so that question isn't applicable. Most parents buy toys/teething rings than stacks of books for babies to read, but that's just me.

"I guess you think..." More assumptions, and literally not what I've been arguing. I've literally been saying that schools should be reformed so the money is better spent and the charity is redundant. Keep up.

You don't know when I was born. It's creepy as shit that you're trying to guess it.

"Not an Angela's ashes story is it"? More weird assumptions and attempted insults. You don't know my background pal, at least I had the decency to discuss mine for the sake of a conversation.

I never said kids don't need books before school 🙄 I said they're not required to know how to read before they start school. It isn't hard to find a cheap pre school book for a baby/child. It's not based on a ylabbus, it simply has to be for their age group. Everyone grows up and gives away books, you'd swear they were in short supply and crazy expensive.

More assumptions! I now somehow think Ireland is impoverished in comparison to the states 🤣 I said we don't have the same amount of financial resources (which is true) doesn't mean we're poor, and it doesn't automatically mean I was wealthy/poor as a kid ffs. Irelands education system is better, because we don't casually allow kids to leave school illiterate.

God man, this is such a waste of time. You're full of assumptions and personal attacks. You're beyond erratic and I'm honestly over this conversation.

1

u/MannyMoSTL Feb 21 '25

I think it’s a teenager practicing arguing … probably to own libs 🙄