from your recent Columbus Dispatch mobile article: "[....]Affluent kids are far more likely to get a good preschool education and have parents who read to them and nurseries full of educational toys. And the gap only widens from there[....]"
This is a little shy of the full cultural/ economic truth, don't you think? Don't see how you can avoid that monumental logical hurdle we've gradually set ourselves up for over the years. Otherwise your just making an incomplete statement of the case in point. Take it all the way.
Many families these days require both partners work; and worse there are too many single parent families. In other words: who is staying home to care for, or has energy for motivating the kids? Yes, affluent families have this great advantage---but never mind the money spent on expensive day care or private schools and colleges. Frankly I think the Tiger Moms have got their game on at home when it comes to educating children and preparing them for the increasingly competitive world. They quite simply have both the money and more importantly the time.
Anyway, it's not PC to demand either gender be the dedicated stay at home parent. But somebody must! Yet without an equitable minimum income level the proposition is meaningless. So until we solve the minimum wage problem, or rather recognize family incomes must all be well above expenses---but further allow time with our children---we will continue to see a widening opportunity gap.
Further, I don't envision that will happen... in other words we will more likely see more class violence in response to this increasingly oppressive condition. Without time for our children, they will invest less and less time on thinking about our conditions and more time initiating reactionary nihilistic solutions.
No comments:
Post a Comment