Public Officials
I have 5 points.
1. Assertion: Elected officials would have a personal stake in the Public School educational system.
Reasoning: By creating this law, elected officials would have a personal stake in the Educational System. If a public official sends his/her kids to a public school, then that elected official will have an actual, personal stake in the way our public school system turns out. It put their kids on a pressing issue on fixing public schools for forces politicians to take action. Now, they have a loved one who will be affected firsthand by their decisions, and forces them to take personal accountability for the actions they make.
That the first thing why the public officials send their child on a public schools ladies and gentlemen. …show more content…
Assertion: This should be mandatory due to the very nature of the official’s job.
Reasoning: Officials’ income comes from the people, in which the people entrust the officials with their vote so that they may represent them better. Instead of having officials that send their children to private schools, we need officials who actively understand the situation parents are in.
4. Assertion: Public officials need to show faith in school system in order to improve it
Reasoning: It sends a message to people and for the elected official by the public who will lead the society; that this Public official must make a few sacrifices for the country by showing his faith in the Public school system by putting his kids there. Is it an existential test of our leaders' faith in public education? Is it a sign of the economic gaps between our leaders, who have choices and money for tuition and transportation, and the people they served.
5. Assertion: Teachers will work harder
Reasoning: Teachers will work harder because there is the presence of the child of the elected official in their classroom. It forces them to work harder to educate the class. Putting the kids in the classroom will give teachers extra motivation to not fail and to impress the publicly elected
1. Assertion: Elected officials would have a personal stake in the Public School educational system.
Reasoning: By creating this law, elected officials would have a personal stake in the Educational System. If a public official sends his/her kids to a public school, then that elected official will have an actual, personal stake in the way our public school system turns out. It put their kids on a pressing issue on fixing public schools for forces politicians to take action. Now, they have a loved one who will be affected firsthand by their decisions, and forces them to take personal accountability for the actions they make.
That the first thing why the public officials send their child on a public schools ladies and gentlemen. …show more content…
Assertion: This should be mandatory due to the very nature of the official’s job.
Reasoning: Officials’ income comes from the people, in which the people entrust the officials with their vote so that they may represent them better. Instead of having officials that send their children to private schools, we need officials who actively understand the situation parents are in.
4. Assertion: Public officials need to show faith in school system in order to improve it
Reasoning: It sends a message to people and for the elected official by the public who will lead the society; that this Public official must make a few sacrifices for the country by showing his faith in the Public school system by putting his kids there. Is it an existential test of our leaders' faith in public education? Is it a sign of the economic gaps between our leaders, who have choices and money for tuition and transportation, and the people they served.
5. Assertion: Teachers will work harder
Reasoning: Teachers will work harder because there is the presence of the child of the elected official in their classroom. It forces them to work harder to educate the class. Putting the kids in the classroom will give teachers extra motivation to not fail and to impress the publicly elected