Nadine, you're correct in saying that each state is different in how many programs are in place to teach handicapped children. However, I think you're reading into my words something which is not there.
If handicapped children are not receiving the needs from public schooling today. It's because of a failure of the present system. Not because of a failure of limited vouchers.
Sorry, but the tack you've just taken is a typical spin line straight from the teachers unions. In other words, your assumption is; if we move toward vouchers in a limited way, that means we will severely cut funding for handicapped children's programs. What leads you to this assumption? Is it rational? Is it based on any empirical evidence, such as that which has been provided by Milwaukee, or Florida's limited voucher program? Of course it isn't. It's simply an NEA focus group line, which plays right into many Democrat party constituents fear that, "private industry can't be trusted, and are in fact evil".
The values we share as a society will not change as it relates to handicapped children just because we've implemented targeted vouchers. And there is no rational reason to believe it will. Obviously, governments role to educate handicapped children should continue. No one has suggested otherwise. Especially George W. Bush, who has only suggested "targeted voucher".
Democrats who assert such nonsense, have bought into the concept that "if you believe in vouchers, you don't care about the weak in our society". Nothing could be further from the truth.
As a matter of fact, there is far more evidence to suggest vouchers will allow more funding to be available to handicapped children's programs, not less. As schools become more efficient and responsive to the needs of parents, students and teachers. Measuring waste will become a part of the system of rewards. As waste is removed from the system, additional funding may be available toward handicapped children's programs.
A Rising tide does lift all boats, in the sense that excellence is infectious. But that doesn't mean we ignore the weak who fall through the cracks, and not give them the help they need to succeed as individuals. |
