The US should Ensure Access to Quality Education For Everyone

Effort is a key determinate in educational outcomeYou agree that wealth is not the sole determinant but I was refuting your earlier argument that no matter how hard you work that education levels are determined by how “rich” one is. A recent study finds that although poverty makes one less likely to ever attend college, still 53% of those who had ever experienced poverty during childhood attended college [1]. For nearly half of these non-rich to attend college they must have been afforded that chance in some way. Private primary education schools as well as Universities offer generous scholarships, grants, loans to go to these schools. The non-rich already have the access to quality education if private schooling/University is what you consider “quality education”. True, two people’s successes doesn’t prove anything other than it is indeed possible to overcome circumstances. Sorry, but you did mangle my proposal. I apologize for not making my proposal clear. My proposal was that the rich be required to excel in public primary and public secondary education before attending private primary and secondary education institutions. However, I suppose that this could be extended to universities, that you have to succeed in public primary and secondary before attending a private university. The poor and middle class would receive scholarships for attending private primary and secondary institutions: scholarships financed by an increase of taxes for the rich. I apologize for not defining rich in my initial statement. Rich are those abundantly supplied with resources, means, or funds, according to dictionary.com. In other words, those who can easily finance their child's education are rich. Those who cannot do so are classified as non-rich. I’m sorry for mangling your proposal. I still don’t see how your proposal solves access to quality education. You have not defined quality education other than by assuming private schools do this. In order for your proposal to prove your resolution you would need to show that private schools are quality education. Otherwise you are only arguing that the non-rich should be given money to go to private schools not that they should be given money for a quality education. You refer to the fact that C students who are maybe not so driven in public primary and secondary may be more driven in post-secondary. I ask: why would this be the case? At any rate, even in the current system, if you are C student you wouldn't get into Harvard, or MIT. I didn’t say they would be more driven in post-secondary only that they might. But this is moot now that you’ve clarified your proposal. You discuss that segregation is "just wrong." I won't argue, but why do you suppose that is the case? Perhaps words like equality, fairness, and life quality figure in the argument that segregation is, as you say, "just wrong?" The reason we all think that segregation is wrong is because we believe in the fact that all people should be afforded equal quality of life. Quality of life correlates directly to the quality of education. Besides; by disagreeing, aren't you segregating the rich from the poor? Isn't this, as you say, "just wrong?" You still haven’t proven private education is quality education. I apologize for my earlier ambiguity; people and/or states and/or the federal government can ensure that this proposition prevails. The people can ensure it because although I agree whole-heartedly with Alexander Tytler, his statements do not form a basis for us to suddenly trash the constitution. The states can ensure it because they are the ones responsible for education, and the federal government can ensure it by providing a financial incentive to the states. Okay since you make this argument, where is the constitutional authority for the Federal government to provide financial incentives to the states for education? What form would these incentives take? Which of the enumerated powers are you referring to (Art I, Section 8 US Constitution)? First, I am not proposing equality in wealth. Secondly, I am not, as I clarified above, proposing to use the federal treasury to enact these changes. If the Federal government ensures this proposition with financial incentives, then where does the money come from if not from the federal treasury? CONCLUSIONComparing segregation to wealth disparity is not only a false analogy by somewhat offensive. The analogy fails because there are many reasons for wealth disparity but segregation was based on skin color alone.Thank you for the debate. I look forward to your closing. [1] http://paa2009.princeton.edu...