X-no-Archive:yes
I believe that this is a clever dodge. I do not think that Dennis is being
dodgy. I believe he is repeating on oft-told idea that does not bear up
under scrutiny; it merely sounds right as journalists faithfully repeat it
ad nauseum.

Certain forces of population and economics have always been at work in our
"public" schools, with some schools growing, some schools shrinking.
Likewise for the money brought in by various forms of funding. Since none of
my children attend public schools, how does that weaken the school if some
part (and I think you can count on it only being some part, never the whole
amount) of money I pay in does not go to said school, when they also have
one less student to teach? In this case, doesn't per capita income still go
up? It just doesn't go up as much as if they get to keep all the money. Even
if I got that part of the money that is allocated per capita, aren't there
other moneys which are not so allocated? And, someday, when my children are
no longer school-age, won't I be paying in the governmental coffers anyway,
without having any say in where that money goes? (not that I am saying that
it should be any other way, unless schools are eventually funded by tuition
and the contributions of alumni, a clearly insane notion that works for only
a few private universities)

The other "danger" is exactly the one that Paul mentioned as he started this
new thread, and which I infer in Joseph Rosenblatt's post. Clearly some kids
get thru school without the ability to for instance make change, among other
shortcomings that make us cringe when we encounter them behind someone's
counter or wherever. I have heard people read aloud and thought that cheap
speech synthesis software sounded better than their stumbling and stilted
speech. How is it that they have not learned to read aloud better? The
"danger" is that there will be competition based on results achieved. What
if your grocery store or favorite burger joint discovered that kids from one
high school made better employees than kids from the other high school two
blocks over (or worse, across the street)? What happens as better educated
children take their SATs and ACTs, and apply to college? But I question the
reality of this danger, because Paul has chosen a "public school",
apparently on merit. I am completely confident that on a level playing
field, some public schools would be the school of first choice.

The only other issue I can see, and it is an issue that I understand poorly,
is the possible loss of political power, or the possibility that another
viable rival will arise, a confederation of teachers who are not part of the
public school teachers' union, and who support different lobbyists with
different agenda. Is that what is at stake here?

Greg Stigers
http://www.cgiusa.com
but what does any of the above had to do with schools in Minnesota?

-----Original Message-----
From: Dennis Heidner [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
Sent: Saturday, January 27, 2001 2:46 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Long - Schools in Minnesota

Nation wide, I have very mixed feelings with the voucher that have been
proposed,  it could potentially siphon money away from some of the schools
that are already stressed.  I view the public school system as part of the
national infrastructure.  A voucher system could adversely impact that
infrastructure.