11-09-2015, 03:12 AM
(11-09-2015, 01:06 AM)fredtoast Wrote: I am trying really hard to have a legitmate discussion, but it is impossible with all the straw men you keep throwing up to knock down.
I am being 100% serious when I ask how you determine which first graders are going to be able to succeed and which are going to get relegated to a lifetime of unskilled labor. I personally know some kids from poor family conditions who ended up being very successful, and I have known some kids from good family conditions who turned out to be losers. So I don't know how you are going to judge a child by his family.
To me it sounds like you are saying that all kids from poor family conditions are judged to be losers at the first grade level. Instead I am in favor of giving them all the same chance and then let natural competition determine which are the best instead of deciding before they are even given a chance.
You can test them on what they should know at a first grade level. But you also need to know how active their parents are.... Is it a two parent home .... They need to show they have a support system . It's very hard to succeed without a support system. The fact that this is a standard should motivate parents to step up. Now you ask about the kids with terrible parents and a terrible life. Well they better excel in something to qualify for a voucher. These kids are not good risks unless they excel at something.
Like it or not if a parent fails their kids then the kid is screwed . They need to develop their own support system . If they can develop one then they are showing the ability to excel.
You are making this out to be about parents and money. It's not . People with money don't need a voucher . Vouchers are limited and should only go to those who excel. Will this create a have and have nots ..... Yes. But the idea is that the have nots will push to elevate themselves at a young age so they can be a have.
