thejeff wrote:
...kids wouldn't need to sell drugs if they were gonna make $35k outta high school (while other kids go into debt paying for college, lol)
Thoughts?
Where are you getting that idea from? People can already make close to that wage now, so why would $35k prevent them from selling drugs? And no one "needs" to sell drugs. It's a want and a choice.
You cannot monitor whether parents are reading to their kids at home.
A better solution is mandatory preschool from age 3.
exthrower wrote:
I just read an article about Mark Zuckerberg and his friends who spent 200 million on the Newark schools in order to "transform" them....Result....O......
Why do liberals think money is the answer to everything?
Before I respond to this I would like to second what someone else said about the validity of comparing different countries. All those tests you hear about where China beats us? They're only testing their top third, if not even more exclusive. We test everybody. It always amazes people that we assume as a matter of course that other countries are implementing these tests with integrity.
Anyway, education reform is not as liberal or conservative as you might think. I am 100% opposed to business people getting involved in public education, including Mark Zuckerberg. The outcome is often for-profit charter schools. Paying off investors is not exactly my ideal for a public school. But you're correct in that many self-identifying liberals support this. As do many conservatives.
I am fairly liberal on most issues, as my username suggests, but I disagree with basically all of President Obama's positions on education. Many liberals want more government bureaucracy in education. I don't think that's the answer. In that way I suppose I'm conservative, if not libertarian.
So the point is, education reform is not this black and white, liberal versus conservative issue.