[mikester]

In california we have such a population of low income families whose parents are struggling just to make ends meet that they neglect their children's education. They don't spend the time with them on it which means that the children who don't have their own drive and ambition to do well and need that parental influence (like I did) will fail and their teachers become babysitters. There are kids out there with their own drive and ambition that regardless of their parents input will do well in school (my sister for example).

Anyway, in these cases it simply does not matter how much money you throw into education. Without parental support of a teachers efforts (and good teachers of course) the majority of low income children will likely fail.

The whole thing leads down to the amount of time a parent has to do just that and if they are both (or there is only one to begin with) working two jobs just to keep food on the table then it's very likely the time they are spending on their kids with their homework is a big fat goose egg.

When kids fail parents have failed as well. Here's a fantastic socialist idea that is put out blatantly to get the conservatives rile up. I myself wouldn't even sign on for it...but instead of spending the money in the classroom the money could be spent to help these parents out with their income so THEY can be parents.

If you can't afford to have kids - don't.