I'd say everyone would agree in a GENERAL sense, it's beneficial for children to get good grades.
However, let's say you have two teachers.
Teach A offers their students 10 points of extra credit after every test. Teach B doesn't.
Can we say Teacher B "against" helping kids get good grades based simply on the fact he doesn't provide extra credit?
No, that's a ridiculous stance to take. What's more likely is that Teacher B feels that a large amount of extra credit may cause children to actually NOT attempt to study as hard because they have that extra buffer, or believe that inflated grades due to extra credit may give the child a false belief of understanding on a subject beyond what they actually have, or that they feel it's better for a child to be faced with the reality of a bad grade if they don't study well as they feel ultimately it will motivate the child to do better in the future. Or, simply put, he feels while helping kids get good grades IS important, that there are OTHER important things as well when it comes children that outweigh the benefit of giving extra credit. Or hell, perhaps he just thinks the very concept of "extra credit" is against the code of conduct for the school and so he refrains from allowing for such.
So many questions like those of the OP are so reliant on the world functioning in this binary fashion, on top of each situation or issue existing in some kind of strange vacuum, all combined with this self-important belief that one's worldview is inherently superior and more "true" than anyone elses.
By and large Republicans care about the middle class. How much they weigh focusing on help of the middle class with their views on the role of government, or how said help may negatively effect other segments of the population, or may negatively effect the country as a whole in the short or long term, may differ from Democrats. Additionally, what TYPES of "help" is viewed as more important or more beneficial may differ. As would the METHODS in which they feel help should be given. But it's ridiculous, imho, to suggest either party by and large simply are against helping any particular segment of the population in some form as a matter of principle. Both sides generally believe their views and methods will ultimately help the majority of people in this country across the spectrum of race, gender, age, class, etc and that's why they push so hard for their ideas to occur. The other side may disagree that the ultimate result actually DOES help any of those things, but that's a matter of perspective and opinion regarding how one judges the matter as opposed to some kind of objective fact like the OP seems so desperately to establish.
Imagine if Walmart owned access to all the streets in your town. You can go to Target or the mom and pop downtown if you want, but all the roads leading there require a toll, whereas the roads leading to Walmart are free. That is not the avenue the internet needs to go down.
Education in Germany - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Education in Finland - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Education in Denmark - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Just a few examples, feel free to read in depth to there college systems.
"He who does not think himself worth saving from poverty and ignorance by his own efforts, will hardly be thought worth the efforts of anybody else." -- Frederick Douglass, Self-Made Men (1872)
"Fly-over" country spoke, and The Donald is now POTUS.