Speaking today at the US Chamber of Commerce, presidential candidate Mitt Romney told those attending the Latino Coalition Economic Summit he see to it that every child gets a good education.
Blah. Blah. Blah. Bore. Bore. Bore.
Why?
Because we've heard the promise before. If everyone who said they're interested in seeing every child get a first-rate, quality education, kids East of the River in DC would have had more new text books, and less metal detectors by now.
Every politician promises a good education for all. Yet we still, as Romney pointed out, see in America "one in four kids" fail to get a high school degree, and half that don't graduate.
"Kids in America are getting a third-world education", Romney said, calling the education crisis "the civil rights issue of our era."
Gee, we thought gay marriage was. (At least it was two weeks ago).
In addition to creating jobs, saving the economy, finding alternative sources of fuel, (and saving the planet as a whole), Romney seems to think he has the answer to saving education too.
What does Romney think he can do that every other president hasn't?
He's got a "very bold promise of change" that will "restore our national education system", so he claims. And he even has plans to help the poor.
Romney hopes to expand parental choice by giving parents the option to choose whether to send their child to a public or charter school. He says he will offer this choice to every low income and special needs student the chance to choose where their child goes to school.
Imagine that. The presidential candidate who earlier in this presidential campaign said he cared not about the poor, has 'evolved', and now cares about the poor.
Maybe he's realized what many have known all along. Where a child lives (inner city, or other) should not be the determining factor as to how many computers, top-notch teachers, and up-to-date text books a school should get.
After all, Bill and Melinda Gates can't fund every school in the U.S. (Then again, they probably could). But it would be nice not only to see no child left behind, but also no school district left without the money needed to give America's kids the very best in educational tools and resources no matter if they are East of the River in Anacostia, or upper North West.
And that, is a message to both the sitting president, and the presumptive presidential nominee.
Blah. Blah. Blah. Bore. Bore. Bore.
Why?
Because we've heard the promise before. If everyone who said they're interested in seeing every child get a first-rate, quality education, kids East of the River in DC would have had more new text books, and less metal detectors by now.
Every politician promises a good education for all. Yet we still, as Romney pointed out, see in America "one in four kids" fail to get a high school degree, and half that don't graduate.
"Kids in America are getting a third-world education", Romney said, calling the education crisis "the civil rights issue of our era."
Gee, we thought gay marriage was. (At least it was two weeks ago).
In addition to creating jobs, saving the economy, finding alternative sources of fuel, (and saving the planet as a whole), Romney seems to think he has the answer to saving education too.
What does Romney think he can do that every other president hasn't?
He's got a "very bold promise of change" that will "restore our national education system", so he claims. And he even has plans to help the poor.
Romney hopes to expand parental choice by giving parents the option to choose whether to send their child to a public or charter school. He says he will offer this choice to every low income and special needs student the chance to choose where their child goes to school.
Imagine that. The presidential candidate who earlier in this presidential campaign said he cared not about the poor, has 'evolved', and now cares about the poor.
Maybe he's realized what many have known all along. Where a child lives (inner city, or other) should not be the determining factor as to how many computers, top-notch teachers, and up-to-date text books a school should get.
After all, Bill and Melinda Gates can't fund every school in the U.S. (Then again, they probably could). But it would be nice not only to see no child left behind, but also no school district left without the money needed to give America's kids the very best in educational tools and resources no matter if they are East of the River in Anacostia, or upper North West.
And that, is a message to both the sitting president, and the presumptive presidential nominee.
Comments
Post a Comment