The Pros And Cons Of Trump's Budget Cuts

So, the result of this approach—judging teachers by the score gains of their students—will incentivize teachers to avoid students with the greatest needs. This is just plain stupid as a matter of policy” (Germain). This quote is important because it relates to students not learning well because of issues at home or medical reasons. To explain, it talks about children with disabilities or who are homeless or something along those lines aren’t going to learn as well as other students. If teachers have these students in their class then they aren’t going to get paid very much from them.

If inflation were to occur it would give the people that lost their money a hard time to buy food, which means supporting a family. In other cases, deficit spending could also cause the taxes to increase to drain extra money out of the economy (Investopedia, 2017). With all these negative consequences in mind, deficit spending was very bad for the economy that caused lots of problems. This reason connects to the claim because it demonstrates the negatives of deficit spending along with the New Deal. After the government spends all their money on everything for the New Deal, it affects the economy by having them pay many taxes.

I believe that year round schooling is bad.My reasons for that arethat year round schooling would cost schools to much money,the quality of instruction is more importantthe time spent in school,and for some kids it’s hard to pay eattention for long periods of time. I think that my reasons are reasonable.Because it already takes a good amount of money for schools to go for nine months of school.Making school all year round would make it hard for schools to pay for supplies,buses,salaries,heating,and air conditioning.Also research shows that longer school doesn’t increase the quality of how much kids are learning very much.Another thing is kids with ADHD can’t pay attention for long periods of time,and kids that are very active need to get fresh

In the same sense, school vouchers have a very bad effect on public school education. “Perhaps the most important concern about school vouchers is the effect they have on public schools. Many people acknowledge that vouchers help the students who use them, but are worried that they will make public schools worse by draining money or by ‘creaming’ the best students” (Forster 10). When parents are able to bring their child to any school they please, they bring the funding with them. Schools that lose students also lose their funding, and what is left over for the students who stay is lower quality and lesser

They are tricky and usually lead to paying much more than intended. It is a decision many later regret in life. Anyone who has taken out a student loan will tell you it is a bad idea. So many take out a loan and end up not being able to pay for it, dropping out of college, and still having to pay off the debt. It is better to just avoid student loans and debt in

After reading “Class Differences in Child-Rearing Are on the Rise” by Claire Cain Miller, I realized that there are many aspects that go into socio-economic status. One thing that initially stood out to me within the article is that, “Poorer parents have less time and fewer resources to invest in their children, which can leave children less prepared for school and work, which leads to lower earnings” (Miller). This stood out to me because children have no decision on what family they are born into, and the fact that if they are born into a less privileged family then they are more likely to grow up to be poorer due to the lack of preparation for school and work that they obtained during childhood. Even though there are multiple parenting approaches, most parents want the best for their children, even if they can not give their children the most financial stability. After reading “The Dangerous Consequences of Growing Inequality” by Chuck Collins and Felice Yeskel, I found that the article to be very interesting and informative.

College is something that students strive for now even with the cost, so by decreasing the cost it would logically lesson the want to go. Though it may not have this affect on all students, it would most likely affect those that already have little to no motivation to continue their education. A third obstacle would be the staff. If you were to cut down on staff their would be less jobs and a higher unemployment rate. These employees would reject the layoffs because to put it simply, it is a loss of a job that can not easily be replaced.

Overall, corporate sponsorships should not be accepted by schools because they have more cons than pros. Though they can supply needed funds they can limit students’ choices and don’t always help the departments in schools that really need the assistance. There are other ways that schools can get money besides corporate sponsorships. Schools could apply to get money from their state, town, or city or apply for scholarships. They should opt for these routes that maintains schools as neutral places of

Cutting Health would have students 6th through 12th grade not be well educated about bullying, teamwork, or the body systems. Cutting these would save money because you wouldn't need to buy school equipment or pay the teachers but firing those teachers means that they are out of good paying jobs.

The age group of conscription would be in the point of life of many Americans, where one would be entering the job market or pursuing a higher education. By ripping one out of civilian life, this would greatly decrease their odds of success post conscription requirements, and ultimately their future earnings. This policy would set those conscripted back in educational goals and would limit their marketability when it comes to a successful civilian