MPG writes: >You know, "Haim," I'd never thought of that. You're >right. Let's take all the money away from public >schools. No money, no temptation towards corruption. >Problem solved.
You asserted, without any support, that the public schools are "vastly underfunded". I responded to the issue of underfunding.
You divert the discussion to effectiveness of spending. I responded to the issue of underfunding.
Now, you divert the discussion to corruption. While it is true that I first brought up corruption, I plainly did so only to demonstrate that there is a lot of money in the system, otherwise why bother being corrupt.
Funding of the public schools, an issue that you initially raised, is different from most of the issues that are normally investigated in this forum. It is not about feelings, or style, or child psychology. It does not involve human experimentation with indeterminate outcomes. Funding can be weighed and measure in a variety of objective ways. Over- or under-funding verges on the normative, but you need only specify your criteria.
More so than with any other topic in this forum, you should be able to make an objective case for underfunding. Yet, over several days and several iterations of this thread, not once have you addressed the question of underfunding---an issue that you initially raised---in any substantive way. Will you do so, or is there really no point in trying to engage you in this, or any other, discussion?