Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
so you're are against all kids having the same equal oportunities in life? if you were born with a silver spoon up your bottom, you should always be moved to the head of the line, ahead of "those" kids?
Quote:
Originally Posted by InformedConsent
Read the article linked in my posts, specifically the subsections I mentioned, and you'll clearly see that the answer to your question is definitively, NO.
The dumbing down of the middle- and high-achievers is intentional because liberal educators believe it isn't "fair" that some kids have the 'advantage' of higher intelligence and/or academic skill levels.
The key. Americans DON'T want obama and the dems tearing the successful down, stealing from the successful, punishing the successful, to build up the not so successful.
This poll again demonstrates how out of touch and out of the mainstream MOST dems/libs are. Another blow to obama's re-election strategy. His rich vs poor class rhetoric is failing, just like his policies.
Of COURSE it is. There is NO WAY to attain "equality" across socioeconomic levels. This is something the dems have been trying to achieve for decades. Both classes and the middle are necessary.
To get ahead, hard work, responsible choices and determination are key, as well as the government getting out of the way as much as possible.
Sure, I come down on the side of increasing equality of opportunity. But I don't think we have equality of opportunity and I believe that increasing economic segregation with grographically-based education decreases equality of opportunity.
What part of "school choice is a necessary tool in the presence of economic segregation" do liberals not get?
And I don't think liberal education has lowered attainment. Lower income parents produce lower achieving kids.
That couldn't be further from the truth. It doesn't explain the very slight gains of the low-achievers and the devastating declines among the mddle- and high-achievers.
If what you purport were actually true, the outcome would be exactly the opposite - the lower achievers would be declining while the high-achievers would be soaring. That's not what's happening.
my daughter is an "educator" and we are well aware. kids in the inner city can make due with teacher purchased crayons while suburban kids are carrying around taxpayer supplied laptops. [wishing for the days of separate but EQUAL] don't rock the boat of the "high achieving" suburban kids with the needs of the city inner ramble.
Quote:
Originally Posted by InformedConsent
You didn't read the Atlantic article.
Give it a shot... it's written by a college professor and cites researchers and actual data.
so you're are against all kids having the same equal oportunities in life?
Not at all... each child should be educated to the best of their ability. That's equal opportunity. We don't have that, now. Instead, we have dumbed-down equal outcomes as the educational goal.
Not at all... each child should be educated to the best of their ability. That's equal opportunity. We don't have that, now. Instead, we have dumbed-down equal outcomes as the educational goal.
Yep. Exactly.
I should make clear though that I think "ability" should be tied to intelligence and not to social class.
dude, the Atlantic article is from 1991, are you really arguing about today while citing a 1991.
Quote:
Originally Posted by InformedConsent
That couldn't be further from the truth. It doesn't explain the very slight gains of the low-achievers and the devastating declines among the mddle- and high-achievers.
If what you purport were actually true, the outcome would be exactly the opposite - the lower achievers would be declining while the high-achievers would be soaring. That's not what's happening.
Good try, but fail. I'll put Clinton's economic agenda up against Bush's any day. Clinton and the Democratic path expanded the middle class. Bush and the Republicans decimated the middle class.
Sure, I come down on the side of increasing equality of opportunity. But I don't think we have equality of opportunity and I believe that increasing economic segregation decreases equality of opportunity.
You don't see the difference between equality of opportunity and equality of condition? I don't believe you really do. We have just had an excellent post about those very things and how education has suffered from all the attempts to bring the bottom kids to the top resulting in equality of condition which has hurt the top very badly.
Really, do you not see the difference in those two things. You don't see that the recent regulations of our economy have injured it so badly?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
that some kids have the 'advantage' of higher intelligence and/or academic skill levels.
