MP>JK>The cost to the taxpayers might actually go down with good charter
MP>JK>schools competing with lousy public ones.
MP>Charter and private schools do not have the "burden" of providing
MP>adequate special education. COmparing them is like comparing apples and
MP>sirloin.
When I was a student nurse at St. Elizabeths in D.C., I witnessed first
hand the benefit of having an entire enviornment dedicated to the needs
of a special population.  And that was before tranquilizers were
invented, back in the late 1940's and early 1950's when psychodrama was
first introduced and the idea of allowing patients from back wards to
participate in an annual event was the brainchild of a lady named Chase.
And some of them even got better and left the place despite the fact
that too many of them were treated for "schizophrenia" and actually were
either bipolar or had some other diagnosis.  In an era when we were
taught to abandon all hope for anyone who had a diagnosis of alcoholism
and mental illness.
So I can't find any reason to weep over the idea that kids who need a
lot of help might well benefit from the idea that they would do a lot
better in an enviornment where there was no chance for discrimination,
where all of the staff were supposedly dedicated to helping them attain
as high a quality of life as possible, and where research might actually
be possible.
Nope. Can't think of one reason why I should cry over that one.  Applaud
and jump up and down for glee, but feel sorry, no way.
---
 þ SLMR 2.1a þ This tagline stolen by Silly Little Mail Reader!
---------------