The "double reduction" is obviously for the good of parents and children, why is everyone against the "double reduction"?
author：Tank314
01
Is it possible: it's not that the single-plank bridge is not wide enough, it's that the area on the other side is not enough!!!hahaha!
The "double reduction" is obviously for the good of parents and children, why is everyone against the "double reduction"?
The "double reduction" is obviously for the good of parents and children, why is everyone against the "double reduction"?
The "double reduction" is obviously for the good of parents and children, why is everyone against the "double reduction"?
02
Netizens who studied literature sighed: But I can also feel that science textbooks and test papers are related but not much, so what chemistry is all supplemented, and there is nothing in many books!
The "double reduction" is obviously for the good of parents and children, why is everyone against the "double reduction"?
The "double reduction" is obviously for the good of parents and children, why is everyone against the "double reduction"?
The "double reduction" is obviously for the good of parents and children, why is everyone against the "double reduction"?
03
To be honest, many people who are admitted to high school do not have good grades, not to mention those who are not admitted, most of them are not studying that material at all!
The "double reduction" is obviously for the good of parents and children, why is everyone against the "double reduction"?
The "double reduction" is obviously for the good of parents and children, why is everyone against the "double reduction"?
The "double reduction" is obviously for the good of parents and children, why is everyone against the "double reduction"?
04
The times are different, and the requirements are naturally different!
The "double reduction" is obviously for the good of parents and children, why is everyone against the "double reduction"?
The "double reduction" is obviously for the good of parents and children, why is everyone against the "double reduction"?
The "double reduction" is obviously for the good of parents and children, why is everyone against the "double reduction"?
05
According to various reasons, it is estimated that Zhou Gongzi couldn't find a sense of superiority in that circle of sons, or that he became the object of others in that circle looking for a sense of superiority, and in order to find a sense of superiority, he ran to the circle of ordinary people to reduce the dimensionality. (Doghead)
The "double reduction" is obviously for the good of parents and children, why is everyone against the "double reduction"?
The "double reduction" is obviously for the good of parents and children, why is everyone against the "double reduction"?
The "double reduction" is obviously for the good of parents and children, why is everyone against the "double reduction"?
06
If this is really the case, in the future, the blind date will take out five or six teacher certificates and competition certificates, wouldn't it be crushing the real estate certificate!!!
The "double reduction" is obviously for the good of parents and children, why is everyone against the "double reduction"?
The "double reduction" is obviously for the good of parents and children, why is everyone against the "double reduction"?
The "double reduction" is obviously for the good of parents and children, why is everyone against the "double reduction"?
07
How can the selection mechanism be changed? The current selection mechanism may be the fairest. This is not a problem of the selection mechanism, but the failure of industrial upgrading. If the industrial upgrading is successful, the industrial workers who graduated from the last vocational school are almost good, and the skilled workers who are better will also have a 30w a year, who will go to the tutorial class.
The "double reduction" is obviously for the good of parents and children, why is everyone against the "double reduction"?
The "double reduction" is obviously for the good of parents and children, why is everyone against the "double reduction"?
The "double reduction" is obviously for the good of parents and children, why is everyone against the "double reduction"?
08
Perhaps: real intelligence is not inherited, and it has nothing to do with rich and poor, so there is really no need to review. Letting really smart, rich, and truly talented people go to a good university is the rational use of educational resources!!!
The "double reduction" is obviously for the good of parents and children, why is everyone against the "double reduction"?
The "double reduction" is obviously for the good of parents and children, why is everyone against the "double reduction"?
The "double reduction" is obviously for the good of parents and children, why is everyone against the "double reduction"?
09
There is a question, that is, good students can go to a good school if they make up for it or not, and poor students have the opportunity to go to a similar school through make-up classes. But the total number of places is fixed, and the places that poor students get through make-up classes are additionally increased by the make-up institutions to the school?
The "double reduction" is obviously for the good of parents and children, why is everyone against the "double reduction"?
The "double reduction" is obviously for the good of parents and children, why is everyone against the "double reduction"?
The "double reduction" is obviously for the good of parents and children, why is everyone against the "double reduction"?
10
Not every monkey gets the fruit, but some monkeys already have fruit at home!!
The "double reduction" is obviously for the good of parents and children, why is everyone against the "double reduction"?
The "double reduction" is obviously for the good of parents and children, why is everyone against the "double reduction"?
The "double reduction" is obviously for the good of parents and children, why is everyone against the "double reduction"?
11
In fact, at present, in China, the salary of many manual labor positions is very high, and the working environment is not very good. Truck drivers, porters, construction site workers, as well as confinement maids, nannies, housekeepers, etc., as well as skilled workers in the factory, basically have a monthly salary of more than seven or eight thousand, and there are many who work seriously and efficiently, and there are many more than 10,000.
The "double reduction" is obviously for the good of parents and children, why is everyone against the "double reduction"?
The "double reduction" is obviously for the good of parents and children, why is everyone against the "double reduction"?
The "double reduction" is obviously for the good of parents and children, why is everyone against the "double reduction"?
