> Yes, and that is not going to change unless we privatize education.
Because poor people don't really need to learn how to read!
Yeah, go back to the glory days of the Forties. The Eighteen-Forties.
Because poor people don't really need to learn how to read!
Yeah, go back to the glory days of the Forties. The Eighteen-Forties.
If in 100 years the government provided clothing, and I advocated privatizing clothing, you'd say, "Becuase poor people don't need to wear clothes!"
Where I'm from (in the US), many poor people _don't_ achieve a basically acceptable level of education, because the public schools don't ultimately serve them well for various reasons, and they drop out (or just don't learn but keep getting passed on through the grades). We're talking like high schoolers at a 5th grade reading level, for example.
So it's not like the status quo is a panacea.
It has in the past. Which is my point.
Good for you. The rest of us can look at history with less bias on this subject.
Which makes your claim factually incorrect.
Since you're making unfounded assumptions, maybe you need to check your whole mental model on this topic.