From: doel@bae.bellcore.com (Michael Doel)
Subject: Re: The New Education President
Organization: Bell Communications Research
	<C0F7H0.6J4@newsserver.technet.sg> <1993Jan6.103132.2930@Princeton.EDU>
	<1993Jan6.145639.11012@technology.com>
Date: 6 Jan 93 13:40:49


Judy McMillin writes:

> 	Guess what?  Americans with money have always had the option
> 	of sending their kids to private schools, and most did until
> 	the 60's when it became politically uncorrect.  Also, people
> 	had the option to send their kids to church-supported (cheaper)
> 	private schools, too.  It's only been recently that public
> 	school bashing became popular because, since the 80's, private
> 	schooling has once again become popular

Are you implying that private schools are popular now because of some fad
amongst the rich?  Baloney.  Private schools are popular because they're
better.  Most rich folks aren't predisposed to throw money away on useless
things (that's part of how they get rich), but because of their means aren't
afraid to spend it on things they really need.  The public schools are now
viewed as being a joke & private education can do better.

>                                               and the greedies
> 	who want to use them do not want to pay the (albeit high) cost
> 	of public education as well.

Wrong on two counts.  First, the rich aren't the ones being hurt by the lack
of school vouchers, it's the poor.  The rich already can afford to send
their kids to the private schools.  Would they like the money they spend on
the public schools refunded to them?  Sure, but if all they were concerned
about was the money then their kids wouldn't be in those schools anyway.
Second, conservatives don't support vouchers so that it will give money to
the rich (or really even to give equal access to the poor - that's just a
benefit), they support it because it will introduce more competition into
the school system.  Look at what's happened to mail delivery since
privatization has been allowed.  We now have many services available to us
through private companies and the public post office alike which weren't
available before. 


> 	If somebody (even the President) wants a private education
> 	for his child and can pay for it, why not?  It does not mean
> 	that person doesn't respect the only institution available
> 	to most other people.

Well, it certainly indicates that he respects the public schools less than
private ones, wouldn't you agree?  There's nothing wrong with that, but
someone who campaigns on themes of providing for the disadvantaged and
leveling the playing field should follow through on those themes.  True
school choice is one way to do it.

>                             Besides, I'll bet it's easier for
> 	the secret service to do their secret service in a small
> 	restricted school setting than in the large, open, crowded
> 	public schools, thus saving a few tax dollars.

I'm sure it is, though George Stephanopolis said that security concerns
didn't enter into the decision process (they probably did, but to admit it
would probably serve as an insult to Washington D.C. residents).
Nonetheless, should the rich and powerful be able to put their kids in small
secure schools while a poor mother in Queens has no such option?  You may
think "sure, the rich get all kinds of advantages (better health care,
better homes, etc) and deserve them for achieving" but then don't come
asking for increased welfare, medicare, public funded abortions, etc using
the "give the poor the same opportunities as the rich" argument.


--
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Mike Doel				<doel@bae.bellcore.com>
444 Hoes Lane RRC 1B-209
Piscataway, NJ 08854

"For every complex problem, there is a solution that is simple, neat
 and wrong." - H.L. Mencken
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~