Agreed. I have more children than the average person and I greatly benefit from the property taxes paid by those near me who have no school-age children. But I would trade ALL that in a heart-beat to privatize our schools even though it would mean thousands of dollars out of my pocket.

Our state legislature just recently wrapped up their annual session and of course the hot topic was the budget. Public Education - even with the assistance of the Federal Government in my Red State - still consumed 55% of our ENTIRE budget. And that was on top of a school bond levy to raise money to build another two middle schools and a high school in my area (needed, I'll concede). And then everyone is complaining because the roads were underfunded. The solution is simple: turn the schools over to private groups and let them compete for parents' dollars. We already have a host of charter schools that provide a great template.

... and so you would be free to not accept voucher students at your school.If you feel you cannot compete in a newer education market where more parents have real choice that is a you problem... many schools will... and when the government comes calling they will also have the option to say no.

I look back on my "education", and I see there was so much wasted time that I was mandated to spend. I learn what I need to learn when I need to learn it- and have done that for a LONG, LONG time. High school was a complete waste for me. I dont even remember grade school or anything I learned there really. I wish I had gone to a Montessori school back then. I will say that MIT was different. I came out of there believing I could do anything that I wanted. I dont know HOW that happened, but it did. They deserve credit for that. I dont remember a lot of specifics that I learned there, but I have learned so much since I left there on my own, and it was because of exposure to the atmosphere there.

In that it is a given that the citizens will be taxed for education, I would favor a voucher system in which the tax funds for education were evenly divided between ALL the school-age children and provided to their parents in the form of vouchers, which the parents could use to sent their children to private schools as well as to public schools. The public schools would have to compete with private schools for their funding. The vouchers would be given with NO strings attached, other than the provision that only accredited schools or accredited "home schools" could receive them.

The system WAS completely privately run up until the start of the 20th century. It only started to turn "public" during Woodrow Wilson's presidency and by the time WW II was over, it was ALL public.

Not coincidentally, test scores and the excellence of education of our people has been declining ever since.

Marsha, I agree that the voucher system is worse than not having the government being involved in the education process at all. Not to mention that government involvement in the education process is actually unconstitutional - but who pays attention to that rag of a paper anymore? However, currently, the government runs the entire education system, from collecting (stealing) the money to educating (indoctrinating) the students. The voucher system would at least free up a part of the later half.

Florida Tech does take some public money, mostly via a scholarship fund called Florida Bright Futures that all students going to any university in Florida can use or via the government-run student loan process. It is via the student loans that the statists exert their thought control.

Hillsdale is a beautiful place. My sister-in-law and brother-in-law owned Hillsdale Beauty College for about 20 years before shrugging a year ago.

It 's interesting to note you 've lost a point on this comment. I wonder why?

I understand your issue. You are probably right, you would probably be forced to take vouchers. The sad reality is that the many people who fall below the level who can afford to pay your tuition are doomed to the public school system. I think that getting students out of the monolithic government school system is essential.

As to single payer, in the area of healthcare, which I am involved in, we've just seen Obamacare taking a large control over healthcare insurance. Many liberals do not think it went far enough and are demanding "Single Payer" healthcare where you still have separated providers but the government is the only insurance. This is distinguished from the National Health Service such as Britain has where the government does everything.

Vouchers are, essentially, moving from a National Health Service mode to a Single Payer mode where the government pays but doesn't provide the services.

Since this is what they are used to advocating, it's a good phrase to hang the argument on.

Of course running small private schools are optimal and I don't, in any way, mean to demean what you are doing. I just can't imagine the majority of our population being able to attend such schools -- and we can't let the government have a free hand in indoctrination.

I have no doubt that if 50 years ago the school system was converted to an all privately owned, non-unionized, non-government regulated, and non-government funded system, we would have the best educated work force in the world, universally affordable education and a booming economy. Today all we can hope for is the dismantling of the DOE as a new beginning.

Marsha, william won't get an email letting him know you are discussing with him unless you reply to him. Consider copying your response and hitting "reply" under his comment and pasting it there.

William, running a small private school myself, and seeing how hard it is for middle class parents to pay for the tuition - how easy it is for them to be seduced into the "free" charter schools, magnet programs, etc. - I'm convinced that only the schools with the wealthiest patrons will be able to stay in business and not accept vouchers, if they get to be ubiquitous. That's why I said that. Sure, there will be some die-hard parents who will do anything to pay for private education of their choice, but they are few and far between.

Also, I don't follow the logic of the second part of what you said, single payer schooling and that. Could you expand?

I found her logic flawed in two areas, first that the availability of vouchers for education would somehow prohibit schools from refusing to accept them. If private schools can currently operate without taking government funds, they could choose to continue doing so.

Second, she suggest that a tax credit could take the place of a voucher -- but of course we know that a tax credit would have to be to a 'qualified' school and the camels nose gets back into the tent.

In reality, the government doesn't even need to give you money to dictate how a school should perform. All they do is say that if a school doesn't do x, anyone attending it is truant -- and the guys with guns come to talk to the parents. they almost just did that in California with vaccinations and home schooling.

Of course this is a two-part issue. First, should the state force people to pay taxes to pay for schools and second should the state then run the schools.

If we are going to continue to have the state pay for education, and realistically I think we have to accept that for the foreseeable future, then at least we can try to get more individual choice in the schools.

Tell your liberal friends that you are interested in "Single Payer Schooling".