Slate has been taking a lot of flak over their recent piece, "If You Send Your Kid to Private School, You Are a Bad Person." Clearly the headline was meant to be provocative, and it certainly has provoked. The post has received nearly 6,000 comments, everything from "Why dont you write an article arguing that poor kids need more school options, too?" to "You will get a lot of flak for what you have written, but it is true, and you are brave and timely to write it." Everyone seems to have an opinion.
The education of a child is one of the most important, and personal, decisions a parent can make. What's right for Jack isn't necessarily right for Jill. So if private school is "bad," then what about homeschooling? Or what about those who decide not to have children? Are they bad people because they're not contributing to the improvement of public schools?
At the heart of the question is what can be done to better educate all of society's children. Wealthy parents can send their kids to private school, or buy a nice house in a tony suburb with good public schools. The poor don't have these options. As Boston is poised to elect a new mayor, all the candidates are weighing in on what they would do to improve the city's public eduction. Whether it's spending more on public schools or allowing more choice for everyone, something has to be done. Good schools keep people from moving, keeping tax dollars local, causing communities to thrive. If the candidates knew what was good for them, they'd pay more than just lip service to improving education. It would be their No. 1 priority.