In a recent letter to the editor, Larry Weese criticized my Excellence in Education and Increased Opportunities, (EIEIO) bill, suggesting I was "far out of touch with reality" to suggest something as common sense as providing parents both the right to choose which school their child attends -- the same way they get to choose which doctor they go to.

Actually, it's Mr. Weese and his teachers' union tallying points, which are out of touch with reality -- the reality that too many of our public schools today are providing our children a mediocre education, at best. And that simply throwing more money at the problem won't fix it.

Critical to this discussion is the fact that "public education" and "public schools" aren't the same thing.

Taxpayers have a compelling community interest in seeing that every child receives a proper education. On the other hand, there is no compelling community interest in having the government run and operate the schools. By comparison, while we provide food stamps to the needy we don't force them to shop only goverment-operated grocery stores in their neighborhood.

The reality of the government is pretty much a lousy provider of -- well, just about everything and anything. Including education. Indeed, as Thomas Jefferson once noted, "Were we directed from Washington when to sow, and when to reap, we should soon want bread."

So is it any real surprise that so many of our kids today who "graduate" from government-run schools can't read their own diplomas or make change for a ten?

Mr. Weese claims every parent already has a "choice" in education. Either pay your taxes and pay the tuition to attend a private school or send your kid to a public school no matter how lousy it might be. Some choice.

The reality is that without the financial means to exercise choice, there is no choice.

Taxpayers currently give the public schools a set amount of money per student every year. All the EIEIO rebates would do is give 75 percent of that money directly to parents instead, which will give them an increased opportunity to choose their child's school themselves.

Meanwhile, the government schools get to keep the remaining 25 percent. In other words, more money to educate fewer children. Immediate, cost-free, class size reduction. It's a win-win for both parties.

Nevertheless, Mr. Weese plays the class warfare/resentment card by claiming the EIEIO rebates are just a way "to aid the affluent with their private school funding."

What a crock. The EIEIO rebates will go primarily to low-income and middle-class families who today can't afford to send their children to private schools.

To suggest the purpose of this bill is to subsidize "the affluent" is absurd.

EIEIO rebates will afford every child many of the same educational choices affluent children already have. It simply levels the playing field and provides equal opportunity.

They will also spur the opening of new and different private schools, thus resulting in lower tuition fees and more private schools in poor neighborhoods.

This means urban families won't have to bus their kids all the way out into the suburbs just to get some semblance of a decent education.

Why Mr. Weese believes only rich kids should be able to attend excellent private schools is beyond me.

My interest is in promoting the best interest of our children, not the best interest of the teachers' union or taxpayer-paid school bureaucrat.

While Mr. Weese might not be living on another planet, he's certainly living in another era. A bygone one. The reality is we've tried it Mr. Weese's way. Now it's time to give choice a chance.