POINT/COUNTERPOINT
Yes
In 1892 a group of scholars set a plan
for high school education that is essentially still
with us today. For most of the following century,
schools provided an education that looked pretty
much the same everywhere, symbolized by the
screws that locked the desks to the floor in neat
rows. True to Jefferson’s ideals, the public paid taxes
to support these monolithic schools. Students who
did not fit into those neat rows had to leave to find
work that did not require an education, or they
sought a more fitting education elsewhere.
That thinking has changed, though, and today we
do not force students into a rigid educational path
and drive away those who do
not fit. Today we differentiate
instruction so that no child is
left behind. Individual teach-
ers identify the learning needs
of each student and make
adjustments so that each may
learn. School districts look
beyond the classroom to pro-
vide the programs to meet the
needs of all students.
John Adsit
No
I’m all for giving parents and students
the option of a full-time virtual school. We want
every student to have the opportunity to choose
between five foreign languages and 15 Advanced
Placement classes, not just the students in wealthy
urban districts.
But I don’t think it should be a law. States
passing laws requiring districts to create virtual
schools sounds to me like one of those “fleecing
of America” deals. I suspect that this would be an
unfunded mandate—you know, where the govern-
ment demands some expensive change with one
hand and reduces your operating budget with the
other. I doubt that there is any public school district
in the nation that can afford
to spend the millions of dol-
lars it takes to create a K– 12
online school. And the idea
that districts would cooper-
ate with each other in a joint
effort to accomplish the task
is out of the question. School
districts simply do not work
and play well with others.
So, if the state legislatures do
Tom Layton
