School choice
- Thread starter HighStickHarry
- Start date
That is the plan of the lefties. Enforce equally bad opportunities.
So everyone from the poorest neighborhood can abandon their shitty school and show up day one at the same school Donald trumps son goes too?
@HighStickHarry
No. Most of them would go to voucher/charter schools. But, most kids in the poorest neighborhoods and with the shittiest schools have the poorest, shittiest parents who won't go through the trouble of applying for a voucher anyways. They'll stay in the putrid school system and have a much higher chance of growing up to be everything hates paying for.
No. Most of them would go to voucher/charter schools. But, most kids in the poorest neighborhoods and with the shittiest schools have the poorest, shittiest parents who won't go through the trouble of applying for a voucher anyways. They'll stay in the putrid school system and have a much higher chance of growing up to be everything hates paying for.
Last edited:
The AFT approves of this message and any other ridiculous horse-shit you want to shovel on behalf of the union. WTF part of failing public education don't you get?**
**Yes Virginia, there is a retired teacher residing at this residence who does have a freakin' clue!!
So everyone should lose the opportunity because a bunch of shitty parents in shitty schools won't even bother to apply?
I think that opportunity should be there for everyone, but I'm much more in favor of making shitty schools not shitty, rather than taking funds and the best students from the worst school systems, decreasing their test scores and then claiming public education is failing.
It's beyond me, certainly, but more, more applicable trade schools, better infrastructure, especially in inner-cities. Ensuring class sizes from K-3 aren't too large, which they often are in early elementary classes in underfunded, high population areas. But, regardless of what the solutions are, it will take generations for education to improve. Generations and culture don't smarten up over night. And no solution, be it to reform public education, abolish it, or everything in between will have any immediate result. But, just gutting it could be disastrous for future generations. I mean, we just ended up with Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump as the two candidates for POTUS, and we want to risk making the next generations dumber?
BUT, I don't think it's failing in well-funded districts. I don't think it is failing in districts with solid funding and with a high number of students with strong parental support at home. This phrase will go over like a lead balloon around here, but I think public education is too big to fail.
How many hundreds of thousands of children in this country do have those poor, shitty/non existent parents? Then, they get to go to the worst schools, with the worst teachers, and the least amount of resources and they just perpetuate and grow all of this stuff that people complain about constantly and hate paying taxes to pay for/imprison.
No one will ever argue against opportunity. That said, if your only solution is to "show 'em the money" to fix shitty schools (don't take any funds away), then it's a lost cause. Experience shows pissing more money away doesn't fix a damned thing.
I can't understand the argument for reducing class size. I never was in a classroom which didn't have 30-35 students. Of course, I went to school when the majority of parents cared about their children's education and didn't condone or tolerate their children's disrespect of teachers and school itself.
