Quote:
Originally Posted by PaulS
Run your curser over the text. I shouldn't have used yellow
|
ok, you say liberals want to deny school choice, and instead make public schools stronger?
the inner city public schools will take a long time to be made stronger, so why not offer choice until those schools are made stronger?
Obvious answer, liberals want to protect their union benefactors, even at the expense of the educational future of those kids. Thats irrefutable.
The poor people in those cities desperately want school choice paul. when school choice is offered, do you think no parents jump at the chance, or do you think demand is high? If you care about poor people, why not let the ones who are currently stuck in crappy schools, choose an alternative that is better for their children? you think it’s better to tell them “don’t worry, some day this school will be better”? That’s better for poor people?
And those schools can’t be made stronger by liberals, because liberals equate “stronger” with more funding. Urban schools
don’t stink because of a lack of spending. We spend a fortune on urban schools in CT. They stink because of the erosion of the family in urban areas, and that’s not a problem that can be fixed by throwing money at it. I wish it were that simple. But it’s not.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
Threaded Mode