The US should Ensure Access to Quality Education For Everyone

“Firstly, I would ask my opponent to clarify the above statement; I belive you have contradicted yourself... correct me if I'm wrong.”Let me clarify then. It doesn’t matter if you are rich or poor but rather how hard you work that determines your outcome in life. And that even if all students were equal in wealth the key determinant for their success would be effort and of course natural ability. Wealth alone is not enough to succeed in education or life in general.“Even if they amassed all of their enormous "whining" energy, they still would have difficulty amassing tuition for a good school.”Of course, but life isn’t fair. I would say that an egalitarian life would be boring and de-motivational. If everything was fair and everyone was equal then what would be the point in striving to do your best or trying to overcome your circumstances? Not everyone sits there content to complain about their circumstances and actually do something to achieve their goals, here’s some examples:http://www.horatioalger.com...http://www.horatioalger.com... “My opponent inquires about my precise proposition regarding how to make education equal. I propose that it be illegal to be transferred to any higher educational institution before you demonstrate exemplary performance in government and/or public institutions. After this goal is attained, there are two possible courses of action; firstly, if you are rich, you would then be allowed to transfer to a more advanced institution, payed for with the family's money. Alternately, you could stay in the public system. If you are non-rich, you would receive a full government scholarship that would cover tuition as well as basic tuition costs.”I’m assuming here that your proposal is covering post-secondary education, i.e. University. It seems that what you’re saying is that everyone must attend public primary education. And, that before attending University the student must demonstrate exemplary performance in public school. Then the non-rich would get a scholarship to attend the University of their choice. I hope I didn’t mangle the proposal too badly. So, given that what I think you mean is what you mean then the non-rich already are offered scholarships, grants, and loans to attend University and is even a part of some Universities’ diversity goals. Much like desegregation, schools see diverse economic backgrounds as benefit to the overall educational environment. It would seem, then, that the only difference between your proposal and current reality is that in order to get into University students would have to be exemplary. I would argue that even C students should be afforded the opportunity since C students may have the ability but not the drive in primary education but could be driven to excel in post-secondary. “Education is related to de-segregation. Earlier in our history, the federal government had desegregated education. Why? If segregation had nothing to do with education, why would the government intervene in this respect?”We both know why the government intervened – there was a huge disparity in quality of education between the segregated schools and segregation was just wrong. I’m not even arguing that it shouldn’t have been done. What I’m saying is the law of diminishing returns becomes apparent after 40+ years. Are you proposing further desegregation? And if so, how would this significantly impact educational outcomes?“I concede this point. However, as educational reform is necessary, the states should respond in accordance to this policy. Also, the tenth amendment states that the freedoms are reserved by "...the people." I think you would agree that the majority of the US population fit the non-rich category. If it is the will of the people, or if it benefits the people, it should be passed into federal law.”Which is it? You say the states should respond but that it should be passed into federal law. This is precisely why Alexander Tytler, in the 18th century said, “"A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the majority discovers it can vote itself largess out of the public treasury. After that, the majority always votes for the candidate promising the most benefits with the result the democracy collapses because of the loose fiscal policy ensuing, always to be followed by a dictatorship, then a monarchy." Just because the majority thinks everything should be free, fair and equal does not make it right or affordable.CONCLUSIONEquality in wealth is not only unattainable but undesirable. In order to achieve this end would require depriving others of their wealth which is antithetical to fairness and equality. I would offer that equal opportunity should exist as enshrined in the Declaration of Independence but using the Federal treasury to do so is the wrong approach. Your station in life is influenced by external forces but your path is ultimately in your own hands.Thank you. I am waiting eagerly for your response.