3 ms·
That’s a ridiculous equivalency. You can provide high quality education to all without USSR style communism. In fact I’d argue the long term success of a capita
by nvarsj 6y ago
That’s a ridiculous equivalency. You can provide high quality education to all without USSR style communism. In fact I’d argue the long term success of a capitalist system relies on it.
- sokoloff 6y agoI’m not so sure about “high-quality” being possible for all. “Reasonable quality” I’d agree with, but truly high-quality education is incredibly labor and resource intensive to provide as it must be tailored to the student to a significant degree.
- sul_tasto 6y agoIn my experience, providing “a high quality education for all” just isn’t possible, because it’s dependent upon what caliber of students are in the classroom. Stipulating an equal distribution of ability levels doesn’t raise all boats, it drags the most capable students down. What I don’t understand is why it’s often considered acceptable to disregard the needs of strong students. Don’t they also have a right to be challenged in the classroom?
- ModernMech 6y agoIn my experience education has been defunded for decades while wealth inequality has been exacerbated. One only has to look at the fact that the inheritance tax is indexed to inflation, while the minimum wage and teacher expense deduction aren't to understand where our national priorities are. I'm not willing to say "a high quality education for all just isn’t possible" until we've invested equivalent resources into education as waging war. Imagine if our education budget was $700 billion annually. What could be possible?