-27
this post was submitted on 21 Dec 2023
-27 points (17.1% liked)
Conservative
404 readers
37 users here now
A place to discuss pro-conservative stuff
-
Be excellent to each other. Civility, No Racism, No Bigotry, No Slurs, No calls to violences, No namecalling, All that good stuff, follow lemm.ee's rules, follow the rules of your instance, etc.
-
We are a Pro-Conservative forum. Posts must have a clear pro-conservative, or anti left-wing bias. We are interested in promoting conservatism and discussing things that might get ignored elsewhere. All sources are acceptable, however reputable sources with a reputation for factual reporting are preferred.
-
Dissent is allowed in the comments, but try to be constructive; if you do not agree, then provide a reason which is backed up by references or a reasonable alternative interpretation of the provided facts. That means the left wing is welcome to state their opinions, but please keep it in good faith.
A polite request, not a rule, if you feel the need to report a comment, please don't reply to it.
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Sorry, the misunderstanding comes from the fact that I intended to reply to "money is important or money isn't important" as a either/or fallacy. Clearly, schools do need money to operate, but throwing more and more money at a school hasn't been shown to improve academic performance. So demanding Pizza answer this doesn't really make any point.
But there are schools, like schools in Brownsville Ms, for example, that have very poor facilities. Because they raise funding at the local level from property taxes, they can't fix the buildings, and still make the regular budget, let alone pay for extracurriculars, sports equipment, etc. So removing funding that goes to some other school actually reduces choice.