From: epowers@huey.NMSU.Edu (POWERS)
Subject: Re: Public Education (Was: Re: Family Leave)
Organization: New Mexico State University
Distribution: usa
Date: Sun, 4 Oct 1992 20:13:28 GMT

In article <LARRY.92Oct3192121@peak.psl.nmsu.edu> larry@peak.psl.nmsu.edu (Evil  
Engineer doin' it the Cowboy Way) writes:
> In article <1afrioINNnuf@bigboote.WPI.EDU> jseaver@yaya.WPI.EDU (Jason John  
Seaver) writes:
> 
> 	   Someone point out the logic in this argument.  As I see it:
> 
> 	   1)  Under the present system, Norfolk's schools don't work.
> 	   2)  Under the present system, only people with money could send  
their
> 		   children to private schools.
> 	   3)  With School Choice, the "poor" could send their kids to private
> 		   schools.
> 
> Oh really? So, let me understand this. Either there is no differential in
> the tuition costs between the public and private schools, or the voucher
> will simply cover the difference. Right?
> 
> Or, (reality), the voucher pays a fixed amount, which is adequate for
> children in public schools, and gets supplemented by additional funds from
> the parents who can afford to pay the difference. The poor kids whose
> parents can't possibly afford it will end up stuck in the public school
> system, while the more affluent kids will get the private education,
> subsedized by public school tax revenues.


	Wrong-o.  Private and parochial schools spend less per student, on  
average, than public schools.  It would save everyone a lot of money.  The only  
problem with it is that government over-regulation usually accompanies  
government money, and I can just see our dear regulators forcing "private"  
schools to accept any deadbeat goof-off who wants to attend, just like public  
schools have to do now.  The best part of vouchers I can see is that they would  
allow people who want to home school their kids to afford it.  So far, home  
schooling has the best record in education, dating back to the beginning of the  
U.S. (not a reply to Larry, I know he didn't write this)


> 
> Meanwhile, the public schools will have their funding decreased
> porportionately and become even worse. That funding will end up
> benefitting private schools and make them even better.
> 
> Sounds like a good way to further polarize the poor and rich. And the poor
> get the short end of the educational stick.
> 
> 		   - BUT -
> 
> 	   School Choice is bad, and it shows that Bush would be "punishing"
>    people.
> 
> 	   Go figure.
> 					   -Jay
> 
> I've got nothing against private schools, I just think they should be paid
> for completely by *private* funds.

	I agree.  But I don't think parents who use their own funds to educate  
their kids should have to pay as much in school taxes as parents using the  
government-funded education programs.

						Erik Powers
> 
> L.
> "Yeh, Buddy..            | larry@psl.nmsu.edu (Larry Cunningham)|  _~~_
>  I've got your COMPUTER! | % Physical Science Laboratory        | (O)(-)
>  Right HERE!!"           | New Mexico State University          |  /..\ 
>  (computer THIS!)        | Las Cruces, New Mexico, USA 88003    |   <> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Disclaimer: Opinions expressed here are CORRECT, mine, and not PSLs or  
NMSUs..
> "We will be asking them to join with us. I'm also going to ask them to help  
us
> to change Congress. It's not just enough to change the president if we want  
to
> change America." - Dan Quayle, on courting Ross Perot's supporters. 
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.elections,talk.abortion,alt.sex,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush,talk.politics.misc