From: charlesw@sail.LABS.TEK.COM (Charles Wilson)
Newsgroups: pnw.general
Subject: Re: Bill Clinton won't send his daughter to public schools
Date: 8 Jan 93 20:46:52 GMT
Organization: Tektronix, Inc., Beaverton,  OR.

In article <1993Jan8.170604.29297@tc.fluke.COM> skele@tc.fluke.COM (Martins Skele) writes:
>bright@nazgul.UUCP (Walter Bright) writes:
>Another poster stated that sending his kids to a private school would require a
>sharp reduction in his living stadard (drive a beater and move to a cheaper
>apartment etc). Therefore he should be subsidized by the government. 

I said the stuff about reducing my lifestyle to afford a private school
education for my kids.  I NEVER said I should be subsidized by the
government.  Quite the contrary!!  The way things are now, I have two
choices -- use the money that has been collected via taxes to send my
child to a public school (remember, it is not FREE. Many people pay
taxes for public school including me).  It's not the government's money.
You and I and many others pay OUR OWN money for public education.  The
government SPENDS it.  The other choice I have is to spend additional
funds (I've already paid taxes for part of my childs public education) to
send him to a private school.  THAT was my point.

>The quality of education does not depend strongly on the salaries of teachers, the
>size of classrooms, or the age of the school buildings. It depends on the standards
>of the local school board, the local community, the state, and the nation, roughly

You're right about what a quality education does NOT depend on (salaries,
age of buildings, etc.)  But as far as stating what the quality of
education (or most anything else) depends on, you are wrong, wrong, wrong.
The quality of ANYTHING is determined largely (not exclusively) by
competition.  No competition, little quality.  Why are private schools
"better" (in general) than public schools?  Because they compete with one
another for students.  No students and the school goes out of business.
It isn't how much it costs for that education.  In many cases, you and
I are paying more money per student (again via taxes) for a public
education that is inferior to one they could get in a private COMPETING
school.

>schools will never improve. Having said that, I still don't believe that we should
>siphon funds from the public school system to subsidize those who have chosen to
>abandon that system.

The point is this:  The money going to pay for public education was OUR
money to begin with.  Should we be able to "shop around" for the best
value with that money?  Not to get into another subject, but the system
we have now would be analgous to having government-run grocery stores
for those on food stamps.  In other words, they would not be able to use
the food stamps at the store of their choice.  IF the prices in the
government-run stores were higher than other stores, if the quality and
choice of the food was poor, what could anyone using the food stamps do?
They could get some real money and shop at a real store.  Other than
that, they could complain, etc.  But wouldn't it be frustrating if just
down the street were good stores doing a good job?  Why should you have
to fight and complain to get good quality when competition would solve
the problem for the most part.

In essence we (who have school aged children) are being forced to use
our school-stamps, if you will, at government-run schools.  Clinton thinks
this is fine.  He's not going to send his daughter to an inferior public
school.  But, then, he's got the money and/or influence to do otherwise.

A voucher system that would allow people to spend their "school-stamps"
at the school of their choice is in NO WAY abandoning the public school
system.  If the public school in my neighborhood was better than any
private school, I would send my kid their (and thus spend my
"school-stamps" there).  But it would be MY choice, not the government's.  What is everyone afraid of?