From: wbralick@afit.af.mil (Will Bralick)
Subject: Re: Chelsea's school ...
Keywords: school choice, hypocrisy
Organization: Self-similar
Date: Fri, 8 Jan 1993 18:44:08 GMT

In article <nate.1040@psygate.psych.indiana.edu> nate@psygate.psych.indiana.edu (Nathan Engle) writes:
| wbralick@afit.af.mil (Will Bralick) writes:
| >nate@psygate.psych.indiana.edu (Nathan Engle) writes:
| >|     Perhaps. He definitely opposes policies which would result in a 
| >| wholesale exodus of funding from already sagging public schools.
| 
| >The implicit point here is that it is unimportant what kind of education
| >the children get, so long as _public schools_ survive.  
| 
|     If you can demonstrate to me who is going to take over the task of 
| dealing with all those young people then I'm all ears. If we disbanded 
| public schools tommorrow then private and parochial schools would be 
| overwhelmed the day after that.

What is this rhetorical tactic called?  Isn't it the ``all or nothing''
fallacy?  I am willing to see the education system evolve away from the
status quo -- a conservative would not tend to seek revolutionary
change, you know.  Right now the public school lobbies (educrats and
teachers' unions) have a hammerlock on the system.  I am merely looking
for a way to once again permit the education system to evolve as it seeks 
to meet the educational needs of our society.

You are in the interesting position of being a staunch defender of the
status quo -- a status quo which has demonstrable problems.  I agree
that it is incumbent upon those who seek to change the status quo to
effectively argue for the change.  In an openminded quest for a solution
to a problem, I would think that there should at least be room for
experimentation.

| >|     IMHO before we start handing out what are essentially tax refunds for 
| >| disgruntled parents we ought to look at giving those same refunds to people 
| >| who don't burden the education system at all.
| 
| >And whose infecundity contributes no creative minds to the future...
| 
|     Perhaps. It's my belief that teachers do just as much to produce 
| creative minds as parents. In fact, depending on which parents we're 
| talking about, teachers might actually have a better batting average.

Unlike parents, teachers depend on other parents to supply them with
young skulls full of mush.  As has been pointed out, parents have a more
direct and more profound impact on their childrens' formation.  Best of
all would be to be both a parent _and_ a teacher.

| >| At that point maybe it will 
| >| become obvious that tax money paid for public education is not tagged for 
| >| the personal use of any individual kids, and that even people who don't 
| >| have kids using the system enjoy benefits as a result of living in a 
| >| society which provides its citizens with a basic education.
| 
| >We agree that education is a social good.  The question then becomes,
| >"how best to provide it?"  I think that the public education system is
| >bankrupt, financially and educationally.  I am not convinced that we 
| >would not be better off without it.  
| 
|     Would you then agree that the primary goal of Bush's school choice 
| plan is the wholesale dismantlement of the public education system? 

No, I do not.  The primary goal is to bring the positive forces of
competition into K-12 education.  Hmm... would you agree that it makes
sense to fund pilot programs in school choice and see if they meet with
any success?  Note that the students and parents should be permitted to
choose any public or private (sectarian or non) school to spend their
voucher.  


Regards,

-- 

Will Bralick			          Speaking _only_ for myself.

Standard disclaimers apply.            Void where prohibitted by law.
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh