From: mykes@shell.portal.com (mike myke schwartz)
Subject: Re: Chelsea's school ...
Organization: Portal Communications Company
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL7]
Date: Fri, 8 Jan 1993 14:49:26 GMT

Nathan Engle (nate@psygate.psych.indiana.edu) wrote:
: In article <1993Jan7.020331.8836@afit.af.mil> wbralick@afit.af.mil (Will Bralick) writes:
: 
: 
: >Well, Miss Chelsea Clinton will avoid going to public school this 
: >year by virtue of her parents' money and connections.
: 
:     Yep. To tell you the truth I'm not sure I can really blame them. They 
: have the financial means to place her in the private school and I'm sure 
: that it will be much easier to handle the security in a private school 
: than it would be in a DC public school (where the student body might be 
: better armed than the Secret Service agents in charge).
: 

Amy Carter went to public school.  Saturday Night Live made lots of good
jokes about it, too - SS agents protecting her from spitwads, etc. :)
In chicago, Mayor Jane Byrne moved into one of the worst housing projects
in the country to give her a new perspective on things...  What Clinton
has done is to demonstrate that private schools is HIS choice, since he
is rich enough to choose.

: >As Mr. Limbaugh pointed out today, Gov. Clinton opposes school choice for 
: >middle and lower class people, but not members of his own economic class.
: 
:     Perhaps. He definitely opposes policies which would result in a 
: wholesale exodus of funding from already sagging public schools. I'm 
: afraid that there's a difference of opinion on what peoples' 
: responsibilities should be in supporting public education. Some people 
: seem to think that the money they pay into public education should be 
: refundable if they send their kids to private schools. Personally, I 
: don't even have kids, but I don't expect to get back any of the money 
: I contribute to the public system. 
: 

I don't see any kind of wholesale exodus of funding from the school system.
Given a choice, most parents will still send their kids to public school.
In fact, I send MY child to public school, even though I could afford a
private school.  What I do see is parents sending their kids to the best
possible school, and an exodus away from the poorly run schools.  It will
force the public schools to compete by providing the best quality education
(enough to satisfy parents) to get their funding.  It also would allow
poor people to send their kids to schools in different districts, without
forced busing :)

And to suggest the school system is underfunded isn't quite the story.
You see, 3 years ago, the local school district was crying "poor" and
decided to remove computers from the class rooms and to "choose" between
a library and a computer lab.  My wife and I and many other parents from
the school district started attending all of the school board meetings,
and even ran our own candidates in the next election (1 out of 2 won).
As it turns out, we got to see their budget, and due to government regulations,
they were forced to keep several millions of unspent tax money in a savings
account, called the "capital" fund.  This fund is used to paint, repair
the school buildings, which are in tremendous shape...


:     To me Bush's "School Choice" plans sound a lot like a bunch of 
: disgruntled parents wanting to suckle up to another governmental teat. I 
: know that some people are going to have the reaction that those parents 
: aren't asking for a handout, but rather to have control over where their 
: kids' education dollars go, however I would simply have to comment that 
: I've been kicking into the public education kitty for years and I've 
: never had kids taking advantage of any of the money I've paid. If 
: disgruntled parents can get refunds on "their share" of public education 
: money then why can't I get a refund on mine?
: 

Exactly the opposite, my friend.  The pigs that are suckling will be weened.
Your point about kicking into the kitty is very valid.  However, you would
be a hypocrite to not want to make the infrastructure investment public
schools represent, or the aid it gives to children who would not otherwise
be able to go to school.

:     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. 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.
: 

You are close to the truth here.  You DO benefit from kids having the chance
to go to school.  Those that do stick it out and take it seriously tend to
be less of a burden on society, overall.  The real question is what the
schools' purpose is.  If it is to give kids a useable skill at graduation,
they are pretty weak.  If it is to give kids the basis for future higher
education, they shouldn't be graduating illiterates.

: >Regards,
: 
: >Will Bralick                             Speaking _only_ for myself.
: 
: --
: Nathan Engle                        Software Juggler
: Psychology Department               Indiana University
: nate@psygate.psych.indiana.edu      nengle@copper.ucs.indiana.edu
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.homosexuality