Implying that it would require an infinite amount of money to help a struggling student catch up with the rest of his class.
If the pool isn't infinite then adding a dollar to pile A means taking a dollar out of pile B.
Verdict: You are using leftist "economics" rather than real-world economics.
And you're still not addressing the dumbing-down issue. You teach to the poor students and the good students will be totally bored.
You teach to the poor students and EVERYONE will be totally bored, especially the poor students.
The only subjects where material difficulty is even a factor in that way is the hard science disciplines, particularly math and physics, which most students find boring for reasons that have nothing to do with their difficulty. In those classes, the difference between a good student and an under-achieving one basically comes down to study habits and foundational skills. And yet we now live in a country where very few people are ever less than seven feet from a calculator and foundational math skills have become less and less important; the difference in study habits and disciplined time-management then becomes the ONLY meaningful difference between those two groups of students.
You're not addressing the issue at all. The teacher has two choices:
1) Teach to the good students. They'll advance, the poor students will be left behind and learn nothing.
2) Teach to the poor students. They'll make progress but the good students will know what's being taught, they won't make any progress.
In the real world the teacher will aim for whatever group is larger--this is a big part of the problem with poor schools, the teachers are faced with a bunch of poor students and thus ensuring that the few good students go nowhere.
Equality of outcome forces option #2.
I don't suppose it would require an infinite amount of money to teach struggling students effective studying habits? Or is that just for students whose parents can afford private one-on-one tutors?
One-on-one would avoid the problem. We can't afford it, though. I think we can go a long ways towards this with having computers being the primary teaching tool, though.
No. We are after equality of opportunity.
And the equality of EDUCATIONAL outcomes is the only way to achieve that. A high school dropout does not have the same opportunities as the valedictorian from an elite college prep school, or for that matter, even from most college graduates. Those who favor equity of outcomes proceed from the assumption that raising all students to or above a minimum level of achievement will give them opportunities to live a happy and productive life and become functional, well-adjusted law-abiding citizens eventually raising functional, well-adjusted law-abiding children.
So everyone is valedictorian???
And then there's people like you, who respond with "Let them study cake."
It's not "leftist" to think it is worth the effort to try and prevent bad things from happening; it's not "leftist" to look at someone who is having trouble and think "Maybe there's a way to help that person." It's not "leftist" to look at a child who is struggling in school and decide that whatever it costs to give that child a brighter future would be money well spent.
It's called "being a decent human being."
I do not know that you are actually capable of doing this.
The problem is not with looking for good solutions. The problem is with assuming they exist. You blame us for not implementing the good solutions, never mind that they don't exist to be implemented.
And note that a whatever-it-costs-it's-worth-it argument is by it's nature automatically wrong.
Or perhaps Boener trying to get his eyes to focus properly to see just one basket to shoot at? Or McConnel cowering from all those black people on the opposing team?
