Submitted by ejdc, Oct 1, 2007 16:25

Ms Sternberg's analysis of opposition to the Utah voucher law is off-target. She uses the Oregon case of the 1920's to vilify a movement that has little or no relationship issue at hand. To compare the desires of voucher opponents to maintain a viable public school system is hardly the same as trying to force all students to attend public schools. No one in the Utah anti-voucher movement wishes to force a student to go to any particular school. If parents wish to send their children to a private institution, that is their choice. Those who oppose the voucher simply do not believe that the taxpayers at large should be forced to pay for those parents choice. You may say that those parents already pay for the public school system but do not benefit from it because their children go to private schools. We all pay for all government programs and services, whether we use them or not. We are also free to choose an option other than what the government offers and we pay for that ourselves. Why should schools suddenly be different?

Note: Comments are screened, and in some cases edited, before posting. We reserve the right to reject anything we find objectionable.