[Mike Fieschko]

Why can't educational choice mean freedom to move their child to a different and better performing public school?

Here in New Jersey, each town has its own schools and school board (except for a very few small towns). We've never had out-of-district busing.

To answer your question in the context of New Jersey, you need to ask 'why do parents, teachers, bureaucrats want to keep them (students from Newark, Camden, Paterson, etc.) out of their schools?'

[Slyfox]

To answer your question in the context of New Jersey, you need to ask 'why do parents, teachers, bureaucrats want to keep them (students from Newark, Camden, Paterson, etc.) out of their schools?'

I have no problem with anyone trying to get into a private school. And yeah, poorer students would need financial help to do so. BUT, I don't want the federal government taking that opportunity to tell a private school that since they are taking federal funds they MUST hire homosexuals.

Why should the maximum freedom presently enjoyed by private education be sacrificed in order to have school choice? Public education is where the problem is and it is where the problem should be fixed WITHOUT dragging private education into the mess.

If poor parents want to give their children give children a better education let them do what I do. I spend $1,800.00 per year on three children and I teach them myself.

If private foundations really want to help deserving poor students then let them provide scholarships to the parents. Why should a private educator lose their freedom? Why should we let the federal government muck around in a system that is already not broke?