The Purpose(s) of Education, Public & Private
Robert_Hotz at UNICAM3.LCS.STATE.NE.US
Mon Aug 18 12:12:58 PDT 1997
I am troubled by Ed Darrel's concept of "public needs." It seems that
under this model, at best, the needs of the public can only be met in the
domain of the public school buildings. Or, at worst, that members of the
public somehow become disenfranchised when they decide that their needs
would be better met elsewhere.
When parents of private and home school students ask for something like a
voucher they are not taking money from the public schools. Rather, they
are asking that the government respond to their "public needs" by treating
them the same (financially) as everyone else with school-aged children.
If it is a burden for the public school system to do without the per pupil
cost of the private and home school children that choose not to
participate in the public schools, then the costs of the public school
system are too high in the first place.
Solution: First, lower the tax burden for education at all levels
(federal dept of education; state aid through general fund expenses; local
property taxes, etc). Also, determine what the per pupil cost *should* be
(including in the formula private and home school children). Then allow
anyone with a "public need" to take their voucher to wherever their needs
can be best met.
If what Ed Darrel means is that school districts have budgets that have as
their source the taxes paid by the public, then under a voucher model
private and home school students would "take money from public schools" no
more or less than public school students do.
______________________________ Reply Separator _________________________________
Subject: Re: The Purpose(s) of Education, Public & Private
Author: Ed Darrell <EDarr1776 at AOL.COM> at Internet_Mail
Date: 8/16/97 1:12 AM
In a message dated 97-08-13 23:52:16 EDT, rduncan at UNLINFO.UNL.EDU (richard
<< Ed Darrell's views are typical--he criticizes Bruce &
Maureen for their unwillingness to inculcate their children as Ed (as
the voice of those in control of the curriculum in public schools)
sees fit. His ideas are so good that he wishes to transmit them not
only to his own children but to Bruce & Maureen's children as well.
And if Bruce & Maureen won't go along, *they* are being uncooperative
(indeed, they are opposed to education). >>
I must have miscommunicated. I don't criticize Bruce and Maureen for
anything. I'd like to have them in our town. I criticize the idea that they
should get money from the state in return for taking their kids out of the
public school system. I can generate an argument that they have a right to
take their kids out of the system, though for most educational issues, I'm
not sure where I would find the basis for creating that right.
I do not think they have the right to take money from the public schools if
or because they have an alternative, because that alternative does not fill
the public needs filled by the public schools.
More information about the Religionlaw