此内容暂无简体中文译文，以下为英文原文。
Historical June 1980 report or notice. Original dates, prices and contacts describe the source period; current availability has not been established.
To the editor: I beg to differ with some of the points raised in the Paper’s May article, “Magnets, Clusters, Educational Parks Or Whatever happened to the one room school house?” If one must have artificial integration, I suppose that magnet schools are the best way to do it.
However, the whole idea of busing is unreasonable to families. Children are already forced to spend ten years in school, until they are sixteen.
It seems important to me that children be within easy reach of their parents, so that the family maintains some control over itself.
The author of the article states, “It might surprise some to learn that fewer than half of all children in elementary schools and only about a fourth of the older students attend the neighborhood school where a mother can easily pick up a sick child or drop off the forgotten lunch box.” Half already suffer, so make them all suffer— hardly a sensible doctrine.
Another complaint I have is with the idea of an Olympic magnet school.
If the state must run schools, they ought to be kept to a minimum.
Students should learn basic skills and knowledge, and the entire course should not be a 12 year full-time occupation. Public schools already waste too much time building craft Projects and somersaulting over hurdles or tumbling mats. My own unpopular view is that compulsory public schooling, and maybe all public schooling, ought to be phased out.
In their current form, public schools serve largely to provide government contracts and to keep young people out of the labor market. Julie Bauer Oak Park, Illinois
Originally published in The Paper, June 1980.
Read this article in the original newspaper issue.
Original source: SD_Times1980_06.pdf, printed page(s) 2; PDF page(s) 2.
