Quote:
Originally Posted by scottw
he compared an underprivileged kid in a failing school getting the opportunity to get a good education that might lift them out of poverty,,,, to him getting a free membership at a private golf course....
good grief....  |
Yup. But he's the virtuous one. You cannot make that up.
Every once in awhile Scott, they say the quiet part out loud. They want huge numbers of poor people to stay exactly where they are, because the more of them that are in the cities and addicted to welfare, the larger their reliable voting block is.
Choice a - spend $20k per year per student in Hartford public schools, which are failing sh*tholes.
Choice b - spend less than $6k per year to send them to a catholic K-8 school with less than 10 kids per class, and where kids on average perform a full grade level higher than where they are, on standardized tests.
Why is this a difficult choice? Politics. That's it. If you were at all motivated by an actual urge to help these people, that's a ridiculously easy decision.
But unfortunately for those poor people, while school choice will help lift those kids out of poverty, it doesn't help democrats win elections.
The poor people need to form a union. Then the democrats will actually act on their behalf.
The other benefit to this school choice...let's say you pull 10 kids out of Hartford (where you'd spend $20k per kid), and out them in my kids school, which costs $5500 per kid...the public school in Hartford (1) now has fewer kids, thus smaller class sizes, which everyone knows helps kids. And (2) they also have more money, because Hartford schools can keep the $14,500 they were going to spend anyway on each kid who left for private school. If it's 10 kids who leave, thats $145k that Hartford can spend on the remaining kids.
In other words, after those kids leave, the public school can now spend even more money per kid, on the kids who choose to remain there.
Win-win.
Threaded Mode