Re: the right to purse excellence
Deborah Bartle (email@example.com)
Wed, 30 Apr 1997 23:30:38 -0700
Cathy Pauline Lachapelle wrote:
> Vouchers make a lot of sense in a very straightforward way. Finally,
> money can be distributed more fairly
This idea is nothing more than 'Socialism', really. When was it
determined that the redistribution of wealth was required to
'educate' people equally? In what, the last 25 years, more money
hasn't solved any problems.
> --What about poor kids living in the middle of cities -- how will they get
> to good schools, if their parents can't get them there?
These are the folks who suffer the most from the current system because
it is assumed that these poorer people are unable to educate themselves,
and someone else must take charge to provide for them which results in
disempowerment. Just because families are poor does not mean that they
> --What about places where the schools are in bad condition, or have some
> other reason they can't attract students? Will they rot away because no
> one has money to invest in them? How could a school with failing systems
> and poor materials keep up and catch up with schools that start out better
> off? What about the kids (probably poor local kids) who get stuck going
> to these dying schools?
I think that if the community was responsible for educating it's own
and not compelled to tow the line, that the their creativity would
have no bounds.
> --What about our tendency as people to be insular? Will we end up with
> White schools, Black schools, rich-kid schools, poor-kid schools,
> Christian schools, Muslim schools, (...)? How are we as a people going to
> deal with learning to live together if we don't see each other in schools?
I just havn't seen where government compulsory multicultualism is
the only answer.