|
|
|
|
| |
| |
Stephen Fuld wrote:
Questioning advocate's motives rarely
helps to decide the truth of a proposition.
I would have agreed until recently, but now I'm not so sure.
I recently had to figure out how to prove that some corporate
directors had violated their duty to watch out for some
shareholders. It was made clear to me that I had to look at
possible motives for the directors' actions, which didn't seem
right. I mean, shouldn't *what* they did be all that matters?
Who cares why they did it?
Well, it turns out that in corporate law, at least, it matters
a great deal. Directors have a duty not to put their own
interests before those of their shareholders. Motive matters a
good bit in that determination.
What does that have to do with vouchers? We want our gov't to
be honest. We agree to make sacrifices for the common good (not
run stop signs, pay our taxes, not force our religion on others,
etc.), and we want to be sure that when we do it we're doing it
for the reasons given.
If we're going to give up on public schools, let's make sure
it's because we really believe that what's going to result is
something better, and not because white people simply want less of
their money going to non-white people (which some have argued is
the motivation for much "tax reform").
|
| |
| |
Stephen Fuld wrote:
I would have agreed until recently, but now I'm not so sure.
I recently had to figure out how to prove that some corporate
directors had violated their duty to watch out for some
shareholders. It was made clear to me that I had to look at
possible motives for the directors' actions, which didn't seem
right. I mean, shouldn't *what* they did be all that matters?
Who cares why they did it?
Well, it turns out that in corporate law, at least, it matters
a great deal. Directors have a duty not to put their own
interests before those of their shareholders. Motive matters a
good bit in that determination.
What does that have to do with vouchers? We want our gov't to
be honest. We agree to make sacrifices for the common good (not
run stop signs, pay our taxes, not force our religion on others,
etc.), and we want to be sure that when we do it we're doing it
for the reasons given.
If we're going to give up on public schools, let's make sure
it's because we really believe that what's going to result is
something better, and not because white people simply want less of
their money going to non-white people (which some have argued is
the motivation for much "tax reform").
I'm not sure you can "make the transfer" of the argument about corporate
directors to that of voucher advocates, or tax reformers. Besides, what
does the possible motivation of tax reform advocates have to do with those
of voucher advocates? Also, you seem to be under the assumption that all
voucher advocates are white (and anti-non-white). As was demonstrated by
Charlie's position on the show, many voucher advocates are in fact black or
hispanic as they are the groups that suffer disproportionally with the poor
public schools.
Besides, if the result is better schools, does the motivation of the
advocates really matter? I don't think so.
--
- Stephen Fuld
e-mail address disguised to prevent spam
|
| |
| |
if the result is better schools,
does the motivation of the
advocates really matter?
That's a big "if." And that's the problem -- if we're not
certain about what would actually result, we look at the
motivations involved as evidence in our determination, our
prediction of the results. It'll certainly mean better schools
for some. Charlie represented that top-of-the-class kid would
clearly benefit from getting out of the public school and into the
Catholic school. But they can't all go. In fact, most of them
can't go. Call it "motivation," or call it "the actual result,"
but let's be honest about what might happen. Vouchers, to many,
represent the classic "better to leave the weak behind" approach.
|
| |
| |
"Rico X. Partay" <billg@microsoft.com> wrote
"Stephen Fuld" <s.fuld@PleaseRemove.att.net> wrote
That's a big "if." And that's the problem -- if we're not
certain about what would actually result, we look at the
motivations involved as evidence in our determination, our
prediction of the results. It'll certainly mean better schools
for some. Charlie represented that top-of-the-class kid would
clearly benefit from getting out of the public school and into the
Catholic school. But they can't all go.
They should not all go, because they're not all motivated, and they want
different things from life. Let the unmotivated ones attend vocational programs,
for example.
In fact, most of them
can't go. Call it "motivation," or call it "the actual result,"
but let's be honest about what might happen. Vouchers, to many,
represent the classic "better to leave the weak behind" approach.
The state college system gives students "vouchers" so that they have choice. It
offers students a post-secondary education consistent with their abilities. It
does not leave the weak behind.
|
| |
| |
That's a big "if." And that's the problem -- if we're not
certain about what would actually result, we look at the
motivations involved as evidence in our determination, our
prediction of the results.
Spoken like a theologan! Now me, as a scientist, would say "We are not
certain about what would actually result, so let's conduct some
experiments." I claim that actual facts derived from carefully controlled
experiemnts are better than a variety of predictions based on "foggy" claims
of knowledge of other's motivations.
It'll certainly mean better schools
for some. Charlie represented that top-of-the-class kid would
clearly benefit from getting out of the public school and into the
Catholic school. But they can't all go. In fact, most of them
can't go. Call it "motivation," or call it "the actual result,"
but let's be honest about what might happen. Vouchers, to many,
represent the classic "better to leave the weak behind" approach.
That is one opinion. I maintain that the competition of the vouchers will
get the "juices" going of the public school system and that they will
improve as well. The way to resolve that difference of opinion is not to
make inquiries about motivation, but to actually make the test. BTW, as
evidence that my (and Caroline's) position may be right, both of us cite US
experience with a mixed public and private education system at the college
level. I expect you don't consider all those students at UC Berkely to be
the "left behind weaklings".
--
- Stephen Fuld
e-mail address disguised to prevent spam
|
| |
| |
I wonder if the following two rules might make vouchers more palatable
to many on the left -- although certainly not to the teachers' unions:
1) Prohibit them from paying for any religious instruction. This does
not necessarily rule out Charlie's Catholic school. It just means
they have to keep the Catholicism out of the classroom. If that is a
deal breaker, I am sure someone else would open a secular private
school just as good if there was voucher money to be had.
2) Require that a school accept the vouchers as full tuition in order
to be eligible to accept them at all. This would make sure they
really helped poor students go to better schools and were not just a
subsidy for middle-class parents who were going to send their children
to private school anyway.
|
| |
| |
"No Spam" <madeupaddress2004@yahoo.com> wrote
I wonder if the following two rules might make vouchers more palatable
to many on the left -- although certainly not to the teachers' unions:
1) Prohibit them from paying for any religious instruction. This does
not necessarily rule out Charlie's Catholic school. It just means
they have to keep the Catholicism out of the classroom.
As you may be aware, the Milwaukee vouchers program does indeed explicitly
prohibit requiring students to attend religion classes. My recollection is
numerous Catholic schools nonetheless participate. The kids who don't want to
attend religious class, do not.
I haven't dug as much on the Cleveland program but wouldn't be surprised if it
were similar.
If that is a
deal breaker, I am sure someone else would open a secular private
school just as good if there was voucher money to be had.
2) Require that a school accept the vouchers as full tuition in order
to be eligible to accept them at all. This would make sure they
really helped poor students go to better schools and were not just a
subsidy for middle-class parents who were going to send their children
to private school anyway.
I'd consider this or something like it.
Then again, I'm on the left and have been pro-voucher from the get-go, so you're
preaching to the (Left) choir.
|
| |
| |
1) Prohibit them from paying for
any religious instruction. This does
not necessarily rule out Charlie's
Catholic school. It just means
they have to keep the Catholicism
out of the classroom.
This has been suggested, but the inevitable resulting lawsuits
would require the courts to get into the business of analyzing
what goes on in the classroom, which they've historically been
very reluctant to do (not hard to imagine why).
---
"...religious schools pursue two goals, religious instruction and
secular education; ... the two educational functions [are] so
intertwined in religious primary and secondary schools that aid to
secular education [cannot] readily be segregated, and the
intrusive monitoring required to enforce the line itself [raises]
Establishment Clause concerns about the entanglement of church
and state." -- Zelman v. Simmons-Harris (U.S. Supreme Court, 2002;
Souter dissent).
---
2) Require that a school accept the
vouchers as full tuition in order
to be eligible to accept them at all.
I don't think this would help. Private schools that can
afford to provide an education at a specified $ amount of a
voucher will do so. If it's a losing propostion to take students
at any given tuition/voucher level, they won't participate.
In the above-cited 'Zelman' case, 97% of the vouchers given by
the program were used for religious schools. Why? Because the
church supported the schools and the tuition the Catholic schools
normally charged was therefore somewhat lower than the average
amount of the vouchers. I.e. The schools came out ahead on the
deal.
Very few non-relgious schools participated because the voucher
wasn't enough to cover the cost of the student's education there.
I.e. If you require a private school to accept the voucher as
payment in full, unless you are willing to use a lot more money
for your program than Cleveland was (in that famous case the
maximum voucher amount covered about 60% of the tuition of the
typical eligible, nonreligious private school), nonreligious
private schools won't be interested as it will be a money-loser
for them.
(And even if you don't require the school to accept the
voucher amount as tuition payment in full, the only students who
will go to schools that charge more than the voucher amount will
be those who are able and willing to make up the difference
between the voucher amount and the actual tuition. There will be
very few such students, if any, because (1) the Catholic school
option is still available, which requires no extra contribution
from the student, and (2) the voucher programs are typically based
on need, so the students participating generally won't have the
werewithal to kick in that extra $.)
(Interesting side-light: The Zelman/Cleveland program also let
public schools and "magnet" schools (special subject public
schools) participate, and provided that the same per-student
voucher amount would go to any participating public school as
would go to a participating private school, *in* *addition* to the
normal per-student $ amount each public schools gets whether the
student is coming in with a voucher or not. The result? Not a
single eligile public school participated. Why not? The numbers
didn't work out for them. They saw themselves as under-funded
already, and even with an additional $2500/student/year available
from the voucher (though it could be less if a student is less
than 'fully needy,') they still saw it as a losing proposition.)
|
| |
| |
"Rico X. Partay" <billg@microsoft.com> wrote
"No Spam" <madeupaddress2004@yahoo.com> wrote
This has been suggested, but the inevitable resulting lawsuits
would require the courts to get into the business of analyzing
what goes on in the classroom, which they've historically been
very reluctant to do (not hard to imagine why).
---
"...religious schools pursue two goals, religious instruction and
secular education; ... the two educational functions [are] so
intertwined in religious primary and secondary schools that aid to
secular education [cannot] readily be segregated, and the
intrusive monitoring required to enforce the line itself [raises]
Establishment Clause concerns about the entanglement of church
and state." -- Zelman v. Simmons-Harris (U.S. Supreme Court, 2002;
Souter dissent).
Are you truly aware that (1) this comment was from the dissenting side of this
SCOTUS decision; (2) SCOTUS, the highest court in the land, decided *in favor*
of school vouchers for use at religious schools or wherever, in accord with the
Cleveland program?
There will be no more lawsuits on the core issue of vouchers; namely, that by
giving public money to parents to choose among parochial schools, private
schools, and public schools, the establishment clause is violated.
SCOTUS has ruled it's okay to do this insofar as voucher programs resemble the
Cleveland program.
You seem to be aware of this, based on what you said further down in your post,
but then the above is contradictory.
Your rebuttal does not make sense, as far as I'm concerned.
Your other comments are noted. I have not verified any of your claims, but nor
do I find them troubling.
The goal is to get motivated inner city kids out of failing public schools and
increase competition so maybe the failing public schools shape up. The
experiment is in progress.
|
| |
| |
"No Spam" <madeupaddress2004@yahoo.com> wrote
As you may be aware, the Milwaukee vouchers program does indeed explicitly
prohibit requiring students to attend religion classes. My recollection is
numerous Catholic schools nonetheless participate. The kids who don't want
to
attend religious class, do not.
I haven't dug as much on the Cleveland program but wouldn't be surprised
if it
were similar.
Being a firm believer in public schools, I haven't looked into this
whole voucher thing much. But a question comes to mind. Do religious
schools deal with fields of study that are contrary to their belief system?
For example, would a school run by a faith that believe in a flat earth
have science classes that teach geography? Would they teach physics as they
deal with objects in planetary orbits? Would "Around the World in 80 Days"
be a banned book?
Would a creationist school be required to deal with evelution? With
history further back than 5000 BC?
I'd consider this or something like it.
Then again, I'm on the left and have been pro-voucher from the get-go, so
you're
preaching to the (Left) choir.
|
| |
| |
No Spam wrote:
1) Prohibit them from paying for any religious instruction. This does
not necessarily rule out Charlie's Catholic school. It just means
they have to keep the Catholicism out of the classroom. If that is a
deal breaker, I am sure someone else would open a secular private
school just as good if there was voucher money to be had.
None of the vouchers programs I've seen provide enough money to interest
someone with a profit motive.
|
| |
| |
Spoken like a theologan!
Do you mean theologian, or theoretician?
...let's conduct some experiments.
There have been several. (See my other note for a discussion
of some of the results.)
..."foggy" claims of knowledge
of other's motivations.
Forgive me, but just because you don't understand them doesn't
make them "foggy."
I maintain that the competition of the
vouchers will get the "juices" going of
the public school system and that they
will improve as well.
So taking money away from schools that are already
sub-standard is going to "get their juices going" and make them
better? Now who's being foggy?
...my (and Caroline's) position ... both of
us cite US experience with a mixed public and
private education system at the college
level. I expect you don't consider all those
students at UC Berkely to be the "left behind
weaklings".
Not sure what you're referencing. All I've seen is this...
The state college system gives students
"vouchers" so that they have choice. It
offers students a post-secondary education
consistent with their abilities. It does
not leave the weak behind.
...which doesn't say much.
|
| |
| |
..this comment was from the dissenting side...
Yes, but the specific issue in question (the courts' refusal
to micro-manage school curriculum) has been supported over and
over again by the courts, Supreme and other. It's settled law.
There will be no more lawsuits on the core
issue of vouchers; SCOTUS has ruled it's okay
to do this insofar as voucher programs
resemble the Cleveland program.
Your second, highly qualified statement is correct. The
first, very broad statement is not so clear at all.
The goal is to get motivated inner city
kids out of failing public schools and
increase competition so maybe the failing
public schools shape up. The
experiment is in progress.
What no one has explained is how taking away money from a
failing school, or at least leaving its funding the same and doing
nothing else, is somehow going to magically make it "shape up."
There's no profit motive involved for public schools. Voucher
proponents seem to think there's some underlying psychological
competition motive among public school teachers and administrators
that's going to be stoked by giving taxpayer money to private
schools. It's a very odd notion. Making crummy schools crummier
just gives whatever teaching and administrator talent it there
that much more incentive to go do something else for a living,
e.g., go to a private school and serve only the wealthy.
|
| |
| |
Do you mean theologian, or theoretician?
Sorry for the mis-spelling. theologian - as in one who believes things in
the absense of hard evidence - by faith.
...let's conduct some experiments.
There have been several. (See my other note for a discussion
of some of the results.)
I'll look for it.
..."foggy" claims of knowledge
of other's motivations.
Forgive me, but just because you don't understand them doesn't
make them "foggy."
Right, but I claim they are "foggy" because you have no way in general to
evaluate their truth.
I maintain that the competition of the
vouchers will get the "juices" going of
the public school system and that they
will improve as well.
So taking money away from schools that are already
sub-standard is going to "get their juices going" and make them
better? Now who's being foggy?
Did you miss the first part of this thread where we established that for the
proposed programs, the amount of money *per student* received by the public
schools is actually INCREASED? There are some issues on fixed versus
variable costs, but they don't change the force of the argument.
...my (and Caroline's) position ... both of
us cite US experience with a mixed public and
private education system at the college
level. I expect you don't consider all those
students at UC Berkely to be the "left behind
weaklings".
Not sure what you're referencing. All I've seen is this...
...which doesn't say much.
The point is that in the university system, we have a mix of public and
private institutions and we use taxpayer's money to give students "vouchers"
(variously called Pell grants, or in some cases, low cost student loans)
that can be used in any schools (public or private). The competition has
led to an outstanding public university system coexisting quite nicely with
an outstanding private university system. This is a clear similarity to
what voucher proponents are advocating for the K-12 system, and the hope,
and belief among them is that it can do as well for the public K-12 schools
as it has for the public university system.
--
- Stephen Fuld
e-mail address disguised to prevent spam
|
| |
| |
None of the vouchers programs I've seen provide enough money to interest
someone with a profit motive.
That is partly my point. If getting poor kids out of failing schools
is really the goal (as opposed to providing a government subsidy to
the middle class or beating up on public school teachers for political
points or various other possible goals), let's shell out the money to
do it.
However, I am not sure I want the people with a profit motive. There
may be exceptions but it seems to me that the good private schools at
all levels -- from pre-school through graduate school -- tend to be
non-profit. Still, the money has to be enough to cover costs.
|
| |
| |
The competition has
led to an outstanding public university
system coexisting quite nicely with
an outstanding private university system.
You've stated that there's a correlation, that the two
co-exist. Assuming that's true, what evidence is there of a
*causal* relationship between the competition and improvement
(measured how, exactly?) in the public schools?
ObWWContent: "POST HOC, ERGO PROPTER HOC"?
|
| |
| |
In article <404a0ede$0$178$812600b3@news.nntpaccess.com>,
"Rico X. Partay" <billg@microsoft.com> wrote:
"Caroline" <caroline10027remove@earthlink.net> wrote in message
[...]
The goal is to get motivated inner city
kids out of failing public schools and
increase competition so maybe the failing
public schools shape up. The
experiment is in progress.
What no one has explained is how taking away money from a
failing school, or at least leaving its funding the same and doing
nothing else, is somehow going to magically make it "shape up."
There's no profit motive involved for public schools.
A literally true, but incomplete, statement. The "profit motive" is a
subset of the broader category of "financial incentives." Is there a
*financial incentive* involved for public schools? Yes, absolutey. If
schools lose students, they lose funding. The need for teachers and
administrators drops, and those people lose jobs. School boards lose
influence, as their control of budgets shrinks.
Voucher
proponents seem to think there's some underlying psychological
competition motive among public school teachers and administrators
that's going to be stoked by giving taxpayer money to private
schools. It's a very odd notion.
The idea that people want to keep their jobs is an "odd notion"?
Making crummy schools crummier
just gives whatever teaching and administrator talent it there
that much more incentive to go do something else for a living,
e.g., go to a private school and serve only the wealthy.
Yes; it's that sort of thinking that keeps the government as incompetent as
it is. In the real world, when people do a bad job, they lose money. This
provides an incentive for them to do a better job. In the world of the
government, when people do a bad job, they get extra money, on the "odd
notion" that everyone is currently striving to do his best, and if only he
had more resources he would.
---------------------------------------------
David M. Nieporent nieporen@alumni.princeton.edu
|
| |
| |
"Rico X. Partay" <billg@microsoft.com> wrote
"Caroline" <caroline10027remove@earthlink.net> wrote
Yes, but the specific issue in question (the courts' refusal
to micro-manage school curriculum) has been supported over and
over again by the courts, Supreme and other. It's settled law.
Jesus, a dissenting SCOTUS opinion does not represent the law one whit.
|
| |
| |
No Spam wrote:
That is partly my point. If getting poor kids out of failing schools
is really the goal (as opposed to providing a government subsidy to
the middle class or beating up on public school teachers for political
points or various other possible goals), let's shell out the money to
do it.
However, I am not sure I want the people with a profit motive. There
may be exceptions but it seems to me that the good private schools at
all levels -- from pre-school through graduate school -- tend to be
non-profit. Still, the money has to be enough to cover costs.
More specifically, the money would have to cover costs to get private
schools make an effort to get voucher kids, and would have to more than
cover costs to make them expand to get voucher kids or to make someone
open up new schools. Not necessarily for "profit motive" in the sense
that someone's trying to make money with it (although that's not out of
the question) but at least to have it be that the institution will see a
financial benefit from the voucher program.
|
| |
| |
"Rico X. Partay" <billg@microsoft.com> wrote
"Stephen Fuld" <s.fuld@PleaseRemove.att.net> wrote
So taking money away from schools that are already
sub-standard is going to "get their juices going" and make them
better? Now who's being foggy?
How in heaven's name do you explain the fact that private and parochial schools
often do it better and cheaper?
As a deductive reality, more money does not translate to a better school.
...my (and Caroline's) position ... both of
us cite US experience with a mixed public and
private education system at the college
level. I expect you don't consider all those
students at UC Berkely to be the "left behind
weaklings".
Not sure what you're referencing. All I've seen is this...
...which doesn't say much.
It says everything. Give people vouchers by way of in-state tuition breaks,
federal scholarships, etc., and you have the University of Minnesota competing
well with the private and esteemed Williams College and higher.
|
| |
| |
You've stated that there's a correlation, that the two
co-exist. Assuming that's true, what evidence is there of a
*causal* relationship between the competition and improvement
(measured how, exactly?) in the public schools?
ObWWContent: "POST HOC, ERGO PROPTER HOC"?
OK, perhaps "led to" is too strong, but the existance does show that giving
government "vouchers" (again, things like Pell grants), the students who can
use them in either the public or private universities doesn't destroy the
public university system. In fact, the public university system has thrived
with such a plan (even if their thriving wasn't necessaarily caused by the
plan), so I see no reason to think that the public schools would "collapse"
nor do I see the accuracy of any of the other apocalyptic claims that some
voucher opponents are making.
--
- Stephen Fuld
e-mail address disguised to prevent spam
|
| |
| |
Yes, but the specific issue in question (the courts'
refusal
to micro-manage school curriculum) has been supported over and
over again by the courts, Supreme and other. It's settled
law.
Jesus, a dissenting SCOTUS opinion does not
represent the law one whit.
What I'm telling you is that there are many other opinions
that back it up. *That* makes it settled
law.
|
| |
| |
the public university system has thrived
with such a plan
So you're re-stating the correlation, again with no statement
about a causal connection.
I see no reason to think that the public
schools would "collapse" nor do I see the
accuracy of any of the other apocalyptic
claims that some voucher opponents are making.
Even if the money for the vouchers doesn't come directly from
the public schools' funds, it's money that could be put into such
funds instead of letting it go to private schools. The whole
point of using vouchers in most places they've been used is that
the public education is sub-standard. Whether it's a "collapse"
of public schools or a slow slide into useless, the ultimate
result is the same.
|
| |
| |
"Rico X. Partay" <billg@microsoft.com> wrote
"Caroline" <caroline10027remove@earthlink.net> wrote
Yes, but the specific issue in question (the courts'
refusal
to micro-manage school curriculum) has been supported over and
over again by the courts, Supreme and other. It's settled
law.
What I'm telling you is that there are many other opinions
that back it up. *That* makes it settled
law.
What's settled law is that public money may be used to fund a kids' education at
parochial schools. The concern you named with this opinion is a non-concern,
because the opinion is on the dissenting side of a settled SCOTUS case.
|
| |
| |
So you're re-stating the correlation, again with no statement
about a causal connection.
You are missing the point or attacking a straw horse. I am not claiming
that the existance of "vouchers" in the university system is the cause of
its doing very well, merely presenting an existance proof that a public
education system can do very well in the presence of a government voucher
system. This is in direct refutation to those who claim that instituting a
voucher system for the K12 schools will inevitably destroy them by taking
money away from them.
I see no reason to think that the public
schools would "collapse" nor do I see the
accuracy of any of the other apocalyptic
claims that some voucher opponents are making.
Even if the money for the vouchers doesn't come directly from
the public schools' funds, it's money that could be put into such
funds instead of letting it go to private schools. The whole
point of using vouchers in most places they've been used is that
the public education is sub-standard. Whether it's a "collapse"
of public schools or a slow slide into useless, the ultimate
result is the same.
But the money used for Pell grants, the GI bill and low interest student
loans could be spent on improving the public university system as well.
You seem to be assuming the result when that is the key thing we are
disagreeing about.
--
- Stephen Fuld
e-mail address disguised to prevent spam
|
| |
| |
You seem to be assuming the result...
All I'm assuming is that when you give an inferior school
system more money it does better. (Inferior to what? To what we
want it to be; to what it could be.) If we can't agree on that,
futher discussion is pointless.
That some public school systems do well -- though we haven't
defined what that means in any useful terms I've seen here -- in
the presence of a certain amount of public money going to private
schools says nothing about whether those schools would be better
if *they* got that money. And even if we did agree that they're
doing "well enough," many are afraid of a slippery slope once we
start diverting public money away from public schools.
|
| |
| |
Stephen Fuld wrote:
But the money used for Pell grants, the GI bill and low interest student
loans could be spent on improving the public university system as well.
How? What would you say needs improvement, and how would you do it with
federal money?
g
|
| |
| |
In article <404b49c3$0$182$812600b3@news.nntpaccess.com>,
"Rico X. Partay" <billg@microsoft.com> wrote:
"Stephen Fuld" <s.fuld@PleaseRemove.att.net> wrote in message
You seem to be assuming the result...
All I'm assuming is that when you give an inferior school
system more money it does better. (Inferior to what? To what we
want it to be; to what it could be.) If we can't agree on that,
futher discussion is pointless.
Right; we *can't* agree on that. It's not obvious, and there's little
empirical evidence for it.
---------------------------------------------
David M. Nieporent nieporen@alumni.princeton.edu
|
| |
| |
All I'm assuming is that when you give an inferior school
system more money it does better. (Inferior to what? To what we
want it to be; to what it could be.) If we can't agree on that,
futher discussion is pointless.
Then we are done. We have given the DC schools lots of money - more per
capita than any other place, and they are terrible. They have a trememdous
ability to waste money and not produce results. I see no advantage to
giving them more to waste.
--
- Stephen Fuld
e-mail address disguised to prevent spam
|
| |
| |
Stephen Fuld wrote:
How? What would you say needs improvement, and how would you do it with
federal money?
You got me wrong. I think the public university system is doing very well.
I was rebutting the argument that whatever money was proposed to be used for
vouchers could/should be given to the public K-12 schools and that would be
a better use of the money. I was pointing out the similarity to the
university system WRT tax dollars and they seem to be doing just fine with
"vouchers".
--
- Stephen Fuld
e-mail address disguised to prevent spam
|
| |
| |
| | |
