THE SLIGHTLY MODERATED BOXING RING Message Board

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Pastimes : THE SLIGHTLY MODERATED BOXING RING

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next

To: Lazarus_Long who wrote (16324)	7/1/2002 2:01:00 PM
From: Lane3	Read Replies (1) of 21057

Which, as you said, is the current situation, so we end up no worse off. I'm not so sure about that. Yes, there would be rich schools and poor schools, but the proportion would have changed. Only the really rich will be able to thumb their noses at the vouchers and send their kids to the rich schools. The majority of people who are in the relatively rich schools now will be sending their kids to the poor schools, the ones that take vouchers. Maybe not quite as poor, but definitely not in a class with what the rich schools offer now. It might be easier, quicker, and cheaper to fix what we have. If vouchers are a primarily socioeconomic issue rather than a religious issue, then we don't need to send a couple of generations of kids down some garden path only to end up with mediocre schools again.

Report TOU Violation

Share This Post

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next