Dr. Dan Farcasiu, a member of the Budget Advisory Committee of the Board of Education, has written a provocative challenge to those of us interested in and involved with Roslyn's schools, "A Costly Concept of Schooling," (The Roslyn News, Feb. 17). He raises questions about specific courses proposed for the high school, all with an eye toward judging whether public funds ought to be expended on them. These are good questions, especially given our current fiscal difficulties. However, I fear that the theft of enormous sums of public funds by a few is leading some people, including Dr. Farcasiu, to propose self-defeating, unnecessary and radical changes in Roslyn's educational program. Of course Dr. Farcasiu is correct when he says that we should not waste citizens' wealth. He is also on the mark when he suggests that we ought to spend tax dollars wisely. Unfortunately, I don't think he appreciates what wisdom is in these matters. For Dr. Farcasiu's philosophy of education leads him to propose a counterproductive strategy for providing high-quality education for the children of this district.

Dr. Farcasiu begins with the plain truth that school districts must choose which school programs are worthy of public support. We are compelled to spend money on a state-mandated curriculum, so some of our dollars must go to support these courses. Beyond funding this state curriculum, however, the district may or may not offer electives: art history, a football team, independent research, or drama, music or photography-not to mention various contests, clubs and trips. But choosing this or that elective program, Dr. Farcasiu points out, implies making a judgment about the value not only of the offering but of other possible courses that as a consequence will not be offered (what economists would call the opportunity cost). Going further, Dr. Farcasiu believes these judgments are arbitrary and reflect the interests of only certain students and teachers. So, what to do? Here is where Dr. Farcasiu's argument gets interesting. Since such choices are essentially arbitrary, all electives ought to be eliminated, thereby returning unspent tax dollars to residents, who in turn would be free to spend these funds on whatever additional educational programs they may wish to provide their children. Thus the policy implication: Cut the budget to a minimum sufficient to provide a "solid basic education," leaving taxpayers with money enough to spend on whatever additional education they wish to provide their children. Ms. and Mr. Jones can decide whether their daughter Annie will take dancing lessons, learn how to build sailboats or plumb the depths (and height!) of Brunelleschi's great dome. (Note that members of the community who don't own property, or much of it, will not enjoy a fresh infusion of income with which to pay for these extracurricular lessons.)

Unhappily, this policy implication is the Trojan horse of privatizing public education, here introduced subtly into our current discussion about district finances. Fundamentally, Dr. Farcasiu believes that only families know and ought to decide what education is best for children. Since all curricula rest upon judgments about what children ought to learn, and since Dr. Farcasiu does not trust public teachers and administrators to make these judgments or to advise or lead families in this process, he views proposed expenditures on electives as misspent tax dollars. (Equally puzzling, his colleagues on the curriculum advisory committee have decided to exclude teachers and administrators entirely from active participation in their deliberations.) So it turns out that tax dollars are misspent not only when district funds are used to fly the Concorde to London, but also when elective courses are judged by educational leaders to be appropriate! Indeed, given Dr. Farcasiu's views about the arbitrariness of defining a first-rate education, I imagine he might have difficulty supporting any public education.

The allure of lower taxes is a powerful force in public life; who wants to pay taxes!? But providing a stimulating education for all children, whether or not their families can afford dancing lessons, is still at the heart of a good society. Before the recent theft began to dominate discussion in Roslyn about schooling, there was little concern about expenditures precisely because citizens believed their taxes supported high quality education. Does it follow that a theft, even of this magnitude, means the essential quality of the curriculum and staff of this school system has suddenly deteriorated? Do homeowners, whose real estate equity depends on the quality of Roslyn schools, really believe that Roslyn cannot afford a first-rate school system any longer? When I was hired to teach here four years ago, citizens in this town took pride in the fact that their community is fortunate enough to be able to provide a rich educational environment for all its children. Legitimate anger about the criminal fraud is threatening to overshadow values in which residents of this town, just two short years ago, fervently believed. Sadly in my opinion, the passions of the moment are undermining what was a simple, straightforward truth about education: that communities must find, trust and support teachers and administrators who love kids and know their subjects; they must support teachers and their students over the long run if they genuinely wish to raise responsible and capable adults. I regret that recent events may have led Dr. Farcasiu to give up on this worthy ideal. I am troubled by the thought that someone who wishes to dismantle public education appears in the guise of one attempting to strengthen it.

Dr. Steven Cohen

Chairman, Social Studies, Roslyn UFSD