[MD] Barfuesserkirche (ZMM & Dewey)

[Arlo Bensinger]

[Craig]
This suggestion embodies all the evil of forcibly taking from one person to 
give to another, plus the added problem of rewarding parents for having 
children they can't afford.

[Arlo]
I think the question is this. If schools are something that should be 
funded by the public (like libraries, roads, parks, police, fire, etc.), 
then the solution to the failure of some public schools may be look at ways 
these schools can be fixed. Do they need more teachers? More activities? 
Better technology? More books?

Or, are you suggesting, the schools should not be publicly funded, and 
should entirely be privatized?

Case suggested a while back ""Throwing more money at the problem isn't the 
answer" is one of the most assinine political statements every uttered. 
Spending no money on a problem guarantees it will never be solved. I do not 
object to increasing taxes to fund neglected services." If you're further 
suggesting that the problems in certain public schools are NOT solvable by 
money, then what is the problem? Parent culpability? Community support? 
"Them infernal liberals"? What makes some public schools, such as the Oak 
Ridge Public schools in Tennessee, or the State College Area Schools here 
in Pennsylvania so successful? Is it the high population of 
university-educated parents, who are aware, involved and participate in the 
educational process? (This has been suggested to me many times).

You also seem to suggest that funding education for children whose parents 
are poor is wrong. What is the alternative? A pauper class? Send 'em 
straight to the sweatshops?