It's Gene Hickok's turn. (Nice professorial glasses and sweater vest, Gene!) Of course, he says, there's a relationship between all of these social factors and achievement. That's why we were so focused on No Child Left Behind.
"Disadvantaged kids are at a disadvantage," he admits.??(What's the opposite of hyperbole?)
OK, now??Hickok is wasting precious time restating broader/bolder's case. Attack, attack, attack!
Ah, here it comes. "What their case comes down to is, let's spend a lot more money."
Their view: "The world in which schools exist has changed dramatically...it's a more difficult, troubling world, thus, we need to change the world...Schools can't get the job done unless we end these problems they bring with them."
Hickok: But haven't we as a country tried to do exactly that for decades? Why should we think that adding a few billions more is going to make a difference? It's not broader/bolder, it's going back to arguments we had a generation ago.
If you want a broader/bolder approach, you need to focus on families and children, not systems...stop with the false dichotomy between public and private schools...give poor parents control over their own destiny and that of their children.
There it is...the alternative is SCHOOL CHOICE. (I didn't see that coming, but I guess I'm not surprised.)
