View Single Post
  #471   Report Post  
Scott Weiser
 
Posts: n/a
Default

A Usenet persona calling itself KMAN wrote:

in article , Scott Weiser at
wrote on 4/1/05 11:26 PM:

A Usenet persona calling itself KMAN wrote:


"BCITORGB" wrote in message
oups.com...
Thanks to KMAN:
============
If I may, for many a person with a disability, "handicapped" is like
the
n-word to many a person with black skin. I realize no offense likely
intended frtzw906 :-)
=============

You're right, none intended.

As I was writing, I occasionally was about to write "disabled" but
wasn't sure if that was perhaps the taboo expression. In another
lifetime, I was in the public school system, and was more "aware". Now
I occasionally get caught using n-word equivalencies... Sorry!

As to the anecdote in question, you can't begin to imagine how the
hypocrisy of those parents ****ed me off. And for them to malign the
public system as they were in the process of diminishing it! It stills
makes my blood boil! If I were king for a day, private schools would be
on the chopping block. [I might be persuaded that "choice" in education
*might* be a good thing through some sort of voucher system so long as
-- ditto the medicare program -- nobody could spend more than the
voucher amount. I'd have to think this one through.]

frtzw906

The challenge is to promote flexibility and excellence in education without
ending up with nothing but elite schools for the gifted/rich and slums for
everyone else.


Well, the free market, combined with stipends for the genuinely poor solves
that problem.


It won't work. The amount of the stipend is obviously going to have limits,
and the amount of taxes the free market payers are going to want to
contribute to those vouchers is going to be next to nothing.


Not unless society as a whole decides to abandon the poor, which is
unlikely. If they were going to do so, they would have done so by now. You
imply that contributing to public school education is optional or voluntary.
I never suggested any such thing. I suggest that the stipend be based on
need, and that it come from taxes that are levied equally on all, to reduce
the burden to any individual as much as possible. Even the selfish rich
would be unlikely to complain about a few dollars, or even a few hundred
dollars in additional sales taxes paid to fund public schools.


However, in the present system, if "slum schools" happen, the blame falls on
the government, not on the parents who put their children in private
schools...while usually simultaneously paying for a by-right public school
education for the same students.

The fact is that the more students who are moved to private schools, the
more money and resources available to those remaining in public schools.
What on earth could be wrong with that?


What's wrong with that is it is total crap.


You don't know that. You merely assume it because you have no faith that the
people will be willing to tax themselves to achieve it. Problem is, they
ALREADY ARE. If they can get a better education for their children, while
providing a better education for poor children for the same amount, or less,
than they are now paying for a public school education, why wouldn't they?

The only real difference in the money stream is that the money goes with the
child, not to the district. In this way, the educational system has
something to compete for, which always results in a better product.

--
Regards,
Scott Weiser

"I love the Internet, I no longer have to depend on
friends, family and co-workers, I can annoy people WORLDWIDE!" TM

© 2005 Scott Weiser