Disregarding the voucher question, which I wholeheartedly support, I have a big problem with this article.
What's behind the theory that a unified school district would do any better?
The Los Angeles Unified School district is just plain awful, and there is not even the pretense of local control. Everything comes from the center, and they have made some incredibly bad decisions, including blowing over $100 million on a brand new, state of the art school built on top of major methane deposits. Many think this building is too dangerous to use as a school, and last time I looked, it was still rotting.
Is that what we want?
D
It's a local push by the Liberals in Birmingham.
They want to take control away from some of the school districts. They claim they just want to take the ones that are failing, but if unification would really work, they would try and take all of them.
"School District" is just a euphemism for the Marxian "School Collective".
Even the Soviet Russians abandoned that idea when they saw what a failure it was.
In American Academia, where Marxism is elevated to a blind-faith religion, we can see in practice the maxim, "It is insane to repeat a process and expect different results."
As for the "Public Schools" (euphemism for socialist indoctrination day camps), no matter how much money you give them, it will NEVER, EVER be enough.
I can promise you that.