1
   

Educational fairness

 
 
au1929
 
Reply Wed 24 Sep, 2003 10:35 am
September 24, 2003, 9:06 a.m.
Opportunity For Me, Not For Thee
Congressional kids and fairness in public policy.

By Krista Kafer No matter how long it's been, you don't forget some of the things you learned in kindergarten: Two plus two equals four. Treat others as you would like to be treated. Share your toys. Play nice.
For most of us, these concepts guide the rest of our lives, but others seem to need a refresher course. In fact, some people in the nation's capital may need to sit in the corner and think about their actions. They have been caught saying one thing and doing another, and that's not nice.
For example, when it comes to their own children, many members of Congress support parental choice. In a recent survey, the Heritage Foundation asked every representative and senator whether he has ever sent a child to a private school. Of those responding, 41 percent of representatives and 46 percent of senators have done so. In the general population, only about 10 percent of students are enrolled in private schools.
Surveys in 2000 and 2001 turned up similar results. Our elected representatives like school choice for themselves. And while many claim that they "support our public schools," the numbers show they're less likely to place their children there.
Sens. Mary Landrieu (D., La.), Arlen Specter (R., Pa.), and Hillary Clinton (D., N.Y.), are among those who have used private schools for their children. Sen. Specter's attended a private school in Philadelphia because, according to their father, "they didn't have access to a good public school."

Remainder of article at
http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/kafer200309240906.asp

The answer is to repair our public education system not to give up and give a select few funds to go to private school. What happens to those left behind in the public schools?
Regarding the privileged sending their children to private schools. If they can afford it why not?
The wealthy can afford it do and have things many others do not. They live in mansions while others live in public housing. They travel to exotic places, drive expensive autombiles,
some even have chauffeurs and well I am sure you get the picture. Money buys privilege in our society. I should note that even when I grew up at a time when schools were at their best the wealthy went to private schools. Like it or not wealth has it's privileges. The problem as I see it does not lie with the schools but the parents and permissive society we live in. That is what needs fixing. Vouchers will not repair that damage. They are a bandaid that will not stop the bleeding
  • Topic Stats
  • Top Replies
  • Link to this Topic
Type: Discussion • Score: 1 • Views: 1,116 • Replies: 3
No top replies

 
Portal Star
 
  1  
Reply Wed 24 Sep, 2003 12:31 pm
some people work hard for their money and are rich
some people don't work hard for their money and are rich
some people work hard for their money and are poor
some people don't work hard for their money and are poor

If I was of the kind that worked hard for my money, as many are, I would want it to buy me trips places, and a good education for my kids. That's the way the reward system is supposed to work, and why communism doesn't.
Do not characterize people based on their wealth. Private schools tend to be better than public schools at providing education. I think the voucher system would be a good step in the right direction, because it would create competition between public schools, and as evidenced in the business and medical world, competition creates faster advancements and better organizations.
0 Replies
 
Thomas
 
  1  
Reply Thu 25 Sep, 2003 06:04 am
Re: Educational fairness
This is a difficult article for me to respond to. On the one hand, I agree with its conclusions: Parental choice should play a greater role than it currently does, and vouchers are a nice tool to make it happen. On the other hand, the National Review uses a bogus argument to arrive at this conclusion. True, members of Congress are more likely than the average citizen to send their kids to private schools. But they also differ from private citizens in lots of ways that are relevant for their choice of schools. For example, they are richer than average, and its more likely that they need to send their children to boarding schools. After all, the parent(s) live(s) far from home, which makes it hard to care for the child adequately. If Heritage made a study that controls for factors like wealth and distance from home, the difference between members and non-members of Congress would almost certainly disappear. Hypocrisy has nothing to do with it.

I think vouchers are a good idea, and I'd be happy to argue the case if anyone is interested. But the National Review's accusations of hypocrisy are nothing but a deliberate attempt to smear politicians who disagree with the paper's political agenda. I don't like that.

-- Thomas
0 Replies
 
Wilso
 
  1  
Reply Thu 25 Sep, 2003 06:41 am
In Australia 70% of federal education funding goes to private schools which educates 30% of the students. I'm still waiting for someone to explain to me how that's fair. Choice is fine, but ordinary taxpayers should not have to fund that choice.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Do you remember English 101? - Discussion by plainoldme
Teaching English in Malaysia - Discussion by annifa
How to hire a tutor? - Question by boomerang
How to inspire students to quit smoking? - Discussion by dagmaraka
Plagiarism or working together - Discussion by margbucci
Adventures in Special Education - Discussion by littlek
The Disadvantages of an Elite Education - Discussion by Shapeless
I'm gonna be an teeture - Discussion by littlek
What Makes A Good Math Teacher - Discussion by symmetry
 
  1. Forums
  2. » Educational fairness
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 04/16/2024 at 10:06:28