I usually leave comments about the educational field to the other bloggers, what with their ivory-tower smarts and all, while I had to complete my GED during a stint in prison for a crime I didn’t commit in the manner the cops said I did. But that is another story entirely…
Today’s Post-Dispatch has an article on a ruling in a case of "educational larceny", which is, simply put, attending public school in a district you don’t live in. Now, while I, along with the others here at SMI, favor complete school choice, until that is implemented I understand that the rules of residency are going to be enforced. I don’t disagree with the ruling in favor of the district, per se, but I just wish to point out some of the over-the-top language the judge uses in his opinion. Do you think this judge supports the status quo in education? (Emphasis added, as usual.)
He added: "Were each child entitled to choose where to go to school, regardless of where that child lives, the structure of the public school system of the State would collapse into chaos, thereby resulting in an actual deprivation of the right to a free public education."
Imagine substituting words live "work" or "live" for "go to school" and see how that sounds. "Were each person allowed to choose where to work," or "Were each person allowed to move to wherever they wanted." One of the nice things about not being a lawyer is that you get to criticize judges when they say absurd things like this without worrying about ethical violations. Does Judge Autrey really believe that if people were given more freedom for their own lives that our entire school system would descend into chaos? Unbelievable.
