[MD] Barfuesserkirche (ZMM & Dewey)

[craigerb at comcast.net]

[Arlo] 
> 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? 

These are all important questions whether the school is public or private.

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

This could be a long-term goal, but not currently feasible.


[Arlo]
> Case suggested a while back ""Throwing more money at the problem isn't the 
> answer"...


Generally, you get what you pay for.  But paradoxically, throwing more money at a problem can be counter-productive when:
1) It creates special-interests (public & private) that ensure the problem doesn't get solved & dry up their flow of revenue/power.
2) It discourages those who provide the money from continuing to try to solve the problem.
3) It diverts resources from more important problems.
4) It creates waste & unaccountability.

[Arlo]
> 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? 

Appropriately, the first, alternative step is education.  Prospective parents should be educated that raising & paying for a child is their responsibility, not an entitlement from the state.  This has 2 important consequences:  a) parents will budget for education (like they do for a new car) & not blithely perpetuate a pauper class & b) parents will become more involved/invested in their children's education--like Penn State profs & the Oakridge Boys.
Craig