Submitted by Erik Axelson, Oct 11, 2007 20:34

Your editorial notes that in the Freston case "no precedent will be set, and school districts in the rest of the country seeking clarification of their obligations will be forced to start over again." As a matter of law, that is correct for the nation as a whole. However, the decision on appeal in Mr. Freston's favor by the Second Circuit Court of Appeals is binding law within the Second Circuit, which includes the states of Connecticut and Vermont in addition to New York State. So perhaps there will now be some modest level of experience among the hundreds of school districts within those three states in offering a real choice to children, like Mr. Freston's son, who have learning disabilities that are not well served by the public school monopoly.

Ideally, legislation in the states that offers real choice for all students would be the longer range goal of providing competition and vastly improving k-12 education.

Note: Comments are screened, and in some cases edited, before posting. We reserve the right to reject anything we find objectionable.