the only party making them morons are the Democrats.
The Republicans are a major part of the problem. They keep education rubbish.
I mean, if you were rich and paying a fortune for your kids to go to private schools you'd A) want to pay as little for state education as possible and B) want them to be as poorly qualified as possible do your kids have the best chance in life.
So all rich people are Republican and hence evil and hate children? if I pay for my kid to go to private school it's because I have earned the income level through my hard work and foresight to buy a better product for my child than the public education system provides. If (and they did) my kids go into the public school system (like me) I instilled in them a work ethic that they can achieve despite it's shortcomings and that you do not have to feel guilty about finishing number one or being successful. I also taught them ( with the help of Christianity) that humility is a good thing and to reach out to your Christian family and not judge people based on race, or religion.
Wait, you're making assumptions about what I said.
I didn't say all rich people were Republicans. Then again I wasn't talking about all Republicans. I didn't even say that all rich people are Republican. That's just your assumptions.
What I said was "If you were rich..." which is a conditional clause. So, if you meet the requirements of the first part, then the rest is relevant to you. If you don't meet the requirements of the first part, then it's not relevant to you. It's basic English.
Then you go on to assume that all parents who have the money to send their kids to private school do so from their own hard work. This assumes there aren't people who work and get money from the government. I'm not even talking poor people, I'm talking like farmers and stuff. Sure, they work hard, then again not all their money comes from their hard work. Many rich people are born rich. Look at Rupert Murdoch. He got rich from his work and his son probably went to a private school and got good grades then made it because he worked his way through daddy's company. Would he have made all this money with the same amount of hard work had he been born in an inner city ghetto? I doubt it.
The amount of work you put in doesn't equate to the amount of money you get out. Never has, never will.
You do make a point, that hard work is good. A poor inner city ghetto person who doesn't work hard probably won't make it. Saying that a lazy ass rich man, like George W. Bush, can just pay people to do the hard work for him to become president, say.
So, we can go on and on and on about what makes someone successful. But this isn't the point of the topic.... so.....
The point here is that the Republican Party has often not made mass education better. The question is why. I've given reasons why I think this is the case. I can provide examples of other countries where the right have done the same thing.
The UK, the Tories got into power 5 years ago. They took over from the left wing party which had tried to get less academic subjects to have a similar status as academic education.
Quite simply said countries need builders, they need plumbers, they need electricians, they need people who don't do academic things. Many kids, especially boys, are less likely to find academic education appealing. It has no relevance to their life, not at school and not in adulthood. So why pump out academic education?
Well, the Tories decided to reduce the impact of non-academic education to almost zero. So, kids will be learning academic when they shouldn't be.
I've worked in technical schools and they are so much better for some kids.
But the Tories decide that they did well in the academic system, so everyone should go through it. It shows who is the most "worthy" for the best jobs and all of that. Though it's all rubbish.
Education needs to be much better, and it's not, and it's often being held back by complete nonsense politics. I'm not just saying it's Republicans. I'm saying the Republicans play a big part in this.
Senate panel approves bipartisan K-12 education bill
"A bipartisan education bill to replace the controversial No Child Left Behind law and reduce the federal government's power over schools cleared its first big hurdle Thursday."
:Critics say that law - signed by President George W. Bush in 2002 - placed too much emphasis on judging and punishing schools based on student test scores and gave the federal government too big a role in deciding how best to improve local schools. The law expired in 2007, but states still have to abide by its requirements until a new law replaces it.:
The name sounded good. But did the actual substance match this? Probably not. Introduced by a Republican, House majority Republican (45 voted against it), Senate majority Democrat passed 91-8 with mostly Republicans voting no, president Republican.
So, it wasn't the Republicans who passed this, it was Congress, both sides.
It shows that the US govt isn't really effective at tackling things like this.
