Wojtek Sokolowski:
> No, but it would substantially reduce the negative impact of these
> environments on kids at a rather low cost. It is like malaria drugs -
> surely they do not eliminate unhealthy environment, but they substantially
> reduce the risk of getting sick and are quite cheap.
>
> So if the choice is between a radical but expensive (=difficut to
> implement) or a provisional but cheap (=easy to implement) solution - my
> answer is "the latter." "Better" is often the worst enemy of "good" - as
> history documented time and again.
The lower and intermediate schools being essentially concentration camps, they are unlikely to be any better than the community which surrounds them and may actually make things worse: the defenseless are compelled to enter and remain in the presence of predators of various kinds, generally without the protection or indeed even the interest of the supposed authorities.