4 ms·

The rich families are not the problem here. The public schools with the tyranny of low expectations are the issue.

• pseudostem 3y ago
  I will have to disagree with both you and GP to a certain degree. A developed country is not where even the poor have cars, it's where even the rich use public transport - a quote attributed to many including LKY. Extrapolating this to the current argument (disclaimer: not read the article), if the same system is thrust onto the rich and poor alike, it should get better over a period of time, no? This is a complicated question, thoughts welcome.
  • no1groyp 3y ago
    [flagged]
  • jonhohle 3y ago
    That’s a very specific view of a mostly urban environment. Forcing an encumbered, Orwellian institution on a populace against their will does not seem very developed. (I say that as a husband to a public school teacher, son of a public school teacher, and father of children attending public school.)
  • supportlocal4h 3y ago
    My child attends a small, arguably underfunded, rural public school. It does not have enough faculty to teach Chemistry or Physics every year. Spanish is the only foreign language taught. The student body generally excels. A graduating class of 120 students might have a dozen who score 30+ on the ACT. And, of course, there is perhaps an equal number who fail to graduate. They all go to the same school, but I wouldn't say "the same system is thrust onto the rich and poor alike." The most important system in the education of a child is not within the walls of a school. It is within the walls of their home. It is simply true that a certain level of affluence is necessary to provide a stable learning environment * in the home *. Affluence does not guarantee that stability, but it increases the odds so dramatically that its affect should not be ignored.
  • deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]