Good point, Jim.

My objection to the vouchers is that they are easy to manipulate to
create an even greater difference in class from those who have cash and
those who live paycheck to paycheck. Don't want "those" kind of people
in your school? Charge a cost equal to the voucher plus a certain
dollar amount and almost all can be kept out.

One rule I would impose on vouchers...If you accept them (assuming the
voucher is the same amount the public school would get), you accept them
as full payment. The goal is get people who can do it MORE efficiently
and better, not more costly and exclusive than public schools.

Koz

jim rozen wrote:

In article , John Flanagan says...



A voucher doesn't give you the right to attend any school. Only the
ability to pay for it if they accept you. Just like a college.



OK, we're going to ignore the voucher proponents who say that
public school are so awful that instituting vouchers will mean
their certain demise - because then your comment above would
be quite *un*true - all vouchered kids have to attend somewhere,
so the vouchers really would be an instant in at any school in that
case.

But agreeing for a moment that public schools will still exist
after "V" day, it's apparent that the brighter kids will abandon
them instantly and leave only the problem kids behind: the
kids who cost more to educate. How does a voucher plan ensure
that the left-behinds will still get a decent education?

Jim

================================================= =
please reply to:
JRR(zero) at yktvmv (dot) vnet (dot) ibm (dot) com
================================================= =