In article , Malcolm
Kirkpatrick says...

MK. Robert FitzRoy learned Greek, Latin, shiphandling, gunnery,
fencing, trigonometry, and calculus, between age 12 and 14, at which
point he went to sea (see: __Evolution's Captain__). The physicist
Joseph Henry left school at age 13, and was apprenticed. At 16 he read
a book on science and prepped for college. Ben Franklin attended
school for two years, between 10 and 12.

Right, and Charles Lindbergh was tossed out of my
alma mater on his ear. Those are some great stories but
times have changed, and there was no public education
as we know it now, in any of those examples you mentioned.
Were Robert, Joseph, or Ben educated with public funds,
or did they pay their own way?

So the question is, once a kid takes a voucher, but the
parents can no longer contribute their sha

Do You Require the Public School to Take the Kid Back?

MK. Which school voucher plan are we discussing? My ideal? My ideal is
parent performance contracting, not a voucher. In a school voucher
system, yes, public schools would still have to accept students
according to their usual criteria. I'd suggest that they be budgeted
in the same way as independent, voucher-accepting schools, monthly,
based on enrollment. The only differences between the NEA/AFT/AFSCME
cartel's schools (the "public" schools") and voucher-accepting schools
would be 1) that the taxpayers' per-pupil support of the cartel's
schools would be 100%, while the school voucher would be 0 X%
100%.

Umm, hold it. 100% of *what*? For condition (1) above,
public taxes pay for all of of the kids who want to go
to public schools, just like now? And at the same time,
the public taxes pay some fixed percentage of vouchers for
kids who want to go to a private school, or home school?

Who decides what the total is? Do the taxpayers get to say
what the total budget of the public school should be, or do
they deduct some amount for the X that's going to the private
schools? Unless there is some means to strangle off the
public schools, they will demand the same level of support
as before, and the entire she-bang will wind up costing
*more*.

MK. The greatest barrier to school vouchers is determined lobbying by
the NEA/AFT/AFSCME cartel.

I guess this discussion is finally coming together in my mind.
The voucher folks have a story to tell. That story, simply put,
is:

1) Public education in the US doesn't work well. It costs too
much and does a poor job of teaching skills.

2) We've found a proven way to solve these problems that exist
by giving state money to private schools.

My trouble here is that I really have not seen much evidence
that (1) above is true. And (2) seems to be quite a stretch.

In (1) one invariably sees teacher's unions, stupid teachers,
stupid school boards, stupid kids, stupid parents blamed.
And one *never* sees the voucher advocates admitting that
there really is competition to public schools out there,
right now - and it has not had the effect that they
desire. How can the be sure that more competition will
do it?

And I really am all ears to find cases of (2) where it's
been shown that kids do get a better education for less
money. That would be a great thing. In the meantime I'm
holding my breath.

Jim

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