This page was last updated on January 25, 2011.
Quick hits; Editorial; Beaver County Times; January 23, 2011.
Regarding “NO SOLUTION,” all we have is yet another Times editorial opposing K-12 education alternatives to the traditional one-size-fits-all, brick-and-mortar public school system. Editorials since at least 2002 spoke out against charter schools and vouchers. To my knowledge, the only exception was “Death watch” (6/10/04) in which the Times said, “Have Aliquippa declared a school choice community and find pro-voucher backers to provide the needed funding. This is no reflection on the job being done by the school district. Its teachers, administration and school board are working as hard as they can to improve the district. However, the sad reality is that many people won’t buy homes in the city because of its schools. Decoupling the two would eliminate that concern.”
Not surprisingly, the logic used in the editorial is illogical. The editorial says, “taxpayer-financed alternatives for parents who want to remove their children from failing public schools [is] one more attempt at education reform that is doomed to fail because it ignores the reality that schools are a direct reflection of the children, families and communities they serve.” Aren’t the parents who would take advantage of such alternatives the ones more engaged with their child’s education and the very families deserving of help? If parents want a better education for their kids, why should the family be forced to move or pay tuition twice (once in school taxes and again to the school they want their children to attend)? What was that the Times said about “critical thinking [and] complex reasoning” in another editorial?
Regarding “BEYOND WORDS,” the Times opines “Every representative who voted for the [Obamacare] repeal and every senator who plans to back the effort in that chamber should voluntarily give up their taxpayer-funded medical coverage and buy it on the open market.” The Times would like us to forget representatives and senators already pay for their “medical coverage.” That’s because “medical coverage” is part of their compensation (salary, vacation, other benefits), just like private-sector employees with employer-based healthcare insurance. This means members of Congress foot the bill for their healthcare insurance even though the premium paid by their employer on their behalf doesn’t appear on their pay stubs.
© 2004-2011 Robert W. Cox, all rights reserved.