No Child Left Behind working?

Originally Posted by russotto

Alternative theory: Stupid people don't make much money. Stupid people tend to have stupid kids.

As for social welfare spending: No, throwing money at the problem is not going to solve it. Specifically, taking more of the money from those who have had some success and tossing it into systems which can absorb arbitrary amounts of money without improving is going to make things worse, not better.

That's what I like, a logical, well thought out response. You and your highly intelligent children deserve the society that you will reap. Be sure you don't throw any money at their college education. Don't throw money at your or their medical care, either. Oh, and I wouldn't throw any money at savings or investments or a retirement plan, either. The military? Nah, lets not throw money at defense. Tell you what, just keep all your cash under your mattress in your gated community that you won't throw any money at for roads or police or fire protection. And make sure not to throw any money at the upkeep of your home. Wouldn't want to squander a penny, now would we?

If you'll excuse me now, I'll just stumble off somewhere in awe of your laser-like intelligence.

[russotto]

Originally Posted by marichiko

That's what I like, a logical, well thought out response. You and your highly intelligent children deserve the society that you will reap.

At least it's my own response, and not just a regurgitation of what I read in the latest issue of some left-leaning magazine.

The rest of your stuff is all irrelevant to the subject of primary and secondary education. My claim is that taking more money from "well-off" people and tossing it into failing school systems will have a negative effect all around. This has nothing to do with parent's spending money on college educations, fire, police, roads, retirement or anything like that.

And if you're upset by people calling your solutions "throwing money at it", then you probably shouldn't advocate exactly that. The upshot of your article is that poor kids going to poor schools perform more poorly than rich kids going to wealthy schools, that the US can afford to spend more on social welfare and therefore it should, the implication being that this money will somehow solve the problem.