I was hoping to see something in your paper about the important issue facing Raymond voters on Nov. 4 – the issue of school choice – but I am dismayed that the article that finally appeared on Oct. 24 did not present a balanced view of the issue.

Not only was there a lack of information about the many reasons not to support continuing choice, but also the large photo of the smiling faces of the mom who is in favor of choice and her son seems intentionally deceptive to readers.

There are many reasons why I have already voted against continuing choice in Raymond. For those of you who have not yet voted, I urge you to consider the following:

First, spending public tax dollars on private school tuition is just not right. It is bad policy. The fact that it has been in place for a while now does not make it correct; its continuation has depended on who has been in certain positions and on the power and influence of those who are pro-school choice.

We finally have a chance – and it is our only opportunity, despite what the person quoted in the article misstated – we have a chance to have the voters, all the voters, make a decision on the issue and to make a very positive change.

But I am concerned about both the lack of information and the front page article containing only the opinions of two people, both on the “pro” side of the issue. (Although there was a hearing on this a few weeks ago at which I gave reasons to vote against continuing the policy, I have yet to see it televised. As best I can see from the town Web site, it is not scheduled to be aired.)

Second, there is indeed a financial cost – and it is a significant one – to maintaining school choice. That information was shared at the hearing, but has not been publicized enough. If consolidation passes, there will be an additional cost of $765,908 if we continue to have school choice in Raymond. (Of course, if consolidation does not pass, then we face the costs associated with not complying with the legislation.)

While that figure is a best estimate, given current statistics, it was clearly stated by the school district’s attorney at a recent school board meeting that there definitely would be an increased cost to maintaining school choice. Additionally, the tuition cap that was approved by Raymond voters recently will not continue unless current legislation is changed (a gamble at best).

It is only common sense that choice has, does, and will cost more.

Third, there are other, not financial, costs. When my elder daughter was in sixth-grade and we were faced with the decision of where she would go for the remainder of her education (this was before we had the middle school), it added immeasurable stress to the situation knowing that her classmates would be going to several different schools. The loss of childhood friendships and the loss of the sense of community were inevitable as everyone became involved in the various schools.

We are fortunate that Windham has been willing to work to consolidate with us; if this passes, it can only be better for our children and for our community. As for “improving schools by increasing competition,” as an educator, I am an advocate for a great public school for every student; competition is not the way to accomplish that goal.

Increased collaboration among districts and strong public support for public schools will help us address inequities across districts and will allow us to attain the goal of great public schools for all.

With choice, we have no say over how our tax dollars are spent in the various receiving schools. But if we discontinue choice, and if we consolidate with Windham, we will finally have a voice in our students’ high school education. As a taxpayer, as a parent, as a teacher, and as an advocate for public education, I urge you to vote no on school choice.

Grace Leavitt

Raymond