Quote:
Originally Posted by PaulS
The few would leave and benefit while the majority would be still be in the public schools with fewer resources.
It is all about what is best for Jim - screw the less fortunate. Typical Conservate mantra.
|
"the majority would be still be in the public schools with fewer resources. "
(1) the majority are there anyway. Better to force them all to stay? Or better to help those who want the help?
(2) Fewer overall dollars, but more dollars per student.
(3) competition would incentivize the public school to improve.
"It is all about what is best for Jim"
How does this help me, exactly? I'm not poor in an urban area. I'm already sending my kids to private school. You're saying I'm selfish, because I want to help those engaged parents?
You keep saying you don't want to subsidize private schools, but you're OK with subsidizing public schools, whish are worse and way more expensive?
Finally, it's what they want Paul. I say let them choose what's best for their kids. You'd deny them that choice, yet you claim you're more on their side than I am.
And teh fact that dumping massive amounts of money into lousy urban schools helps democrats win elections, that has nothing to do with the liberal stance on the issue, that's just a happy coincidence for the left.
But you're going to make the urban schools stronger by continuing to throw good money after bad.
Beyond stupid. And likely racist. Keep those darkies where they belong, don't let them into the suburbs. It's better for them, actually, to stay in downtown Hartford. Keep telling yourself that, Einstein.