Tony Smith wrote:
> Shame on you for using such a small sample size to prop up your argument.
> Let's see some real numbers:

I'm afraid you're missing the point. The story is about parents who care so 
much about their children's education, that they are willing to live in 
tents in the middle of the city, in hot weather, for four days. Scores of 
parents have been doing it for years, and the only reason the story got 
media attention, is because two days into the ordeal, they were told by the 
superintendent that the campout was illegal.

Following your and Neil's logic, this guy:

http://tinyurl.com/5gdhn

..was the only one who cared about human rights in China (he was, after all, 
alone in front of the tanks).

> Besides, doesn't that invalidate your voucher idea anyway?

Sorry, I don't understand how you get to that conclusion.

>From what I remember, people say that vouchers are a bad idea, because most 
parents don't care about their children (Tony, Byron et al), and the 
students who leave for private schools will take with them the resources the 
public school system so badly needs (Byron, Russell et al).

This doesn't make sense to me -- if caring parents really represent only a 
small minority, how can they have a significant impact on public schools? 
And if they can't, why do you guys keep insisting that taking away parents's 
choice, and keeping kids in failing schools, is a good idea?

Vitaliy 

-- 
http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
View/change your membership options at
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist