| Home |
| Search |
| Today's Posts |
|
|
|
#1
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
| Reply |
| Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
| Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads
|
||||
| Thread | Forum | |||
| OT Bush propaganda against Kerry | General | |||
| Bush fiddles while health care burns | General | |||
| OT- Ode to Immigration | General | |||
| OT-Think government-controlled health coverage will work? Think again! | General | |||
Hybrid Mode
