In their most recent post, they characterize public-private school choice (the full unadulterated variety that involves something called "freedom") as "a religious agenda ... removing control from local officials." I am trying to find the Scripture reference mentioning school choice. I'll announce it when I find it. And imagine someone wanting to wrest control of their children from state bureaucrats.
Besides, it's in the Nicene Creed somewhere. I think.
Why is wanting to send your child to the best school available part of a "religious agenda"? Because the school a parent might want to send their child to might be religious?
And why is it that religious schools, which involve sometimes expensive tuitions, attract parents who aren't even religious away from schools that are basically free? Could it possibly be because they actually offer a better education? Not just a better religious education, but a better general education?
And why would anyone question their motives when they want a break on the their taxes for it in light of the fact that their helping to pay for public schools?
Day seems outraged that Waters is outraged by the fact that the state dictates that children go to inferior schools:
Waters finds it "outrageous" that local elected officials are being empowered by state law to decide if and where school attendance boundaries should be allowed to exist - in favor of his proposal that would impose a free-for-all on every local community in Kentucky.What? Why should we let the educational well-being of children get in the way of the well-being of the state educrats? Where are our priorities anyway?"Parents may send their children to the public school of their choice."Forget school districts. Forget school board authority. Parents can just send their kids wherever they want.
It is a measure of the cultural inbreeding of public school establishment (that's the one William Bennett once referred to as "the Blob") that they literally can't comprehend that anyone would see the educational betterment of their children as more important than the care and feeding of the fiscally voracious educational bureaucracy. It's also an indication of the intellectually bankrupcy of the whole system.
Day points to a hypothetical situation that one might encounter under even public school choice plans:
Imagine a young couple selecting their new home right around the corner from the best school in their community. They have children who grow to school age only to be locked out of their neighborhood school because folks from the next county over have filled the school to capacity. I think I know how those parents would feel. Tough luck, Junior. Where should we move now? Such scenarios would happen repeatedly across the state.I think Day must know there are reasonable ways to deal with such a contingency that are perfectly consistent with a common sense school choice plan.
But while Day has trouble seeing the rationality behind letting parents decide where to send their kids to school, those of who think it makes pretty good sense have an equally difficult time trying to figure out why anyone thinks it is good public policy to trap children in bad schools.
That wanting to allow children to go to good schools is somehow an inherently religious motivation is not self-evident. But maybe if we keep telling people this, it will make them forget just how bad their current options are.