Cheri,
Look at it this way;
We have a system that is a monopoly. We can not have a voice in what our kids can learn or what they should not learn, we don’t have any rights to say what the money can be used for – not a good thing for any thing public.
Even if you don’t agree with the idea of elimination of public school as we have them today, you can not argue that this is a monopoly and monopolies are bad.
So break it up like AT&T or Standard Oil, this will allow true competition for the money that we give. One thing that choice will help is to force the competition for the betterment of all schools. We see this very thing already in the institutes of higher education and the competition between these schools to attract students.
This answers your question directly “I have to wonder: among all the states, is there one that's found an equitable way to create good schools for all the children?â€
But to further reinforce this, why is it that private schools do so much better than public schools in performance and efficiency?
You bring up valid points, transportation is one thing that I can not speak to but to answer your comment “Putting that responsibility on the parents means that children of low income parents don't really have any choice at all, “ actually I think that this would be a very good thing for low income parents, it allows them to take the money (in the case of local schools $8,500 per student) and decide what is better for them. Come to Detroit and see what these poor kids have to put up with (they get a little bit more than $8,500) – a system where the money is filtered down from a central administration to the schools to the point that there have been fund raisers outside of the city just to buy toilet paper for elementary schools. Wouldn’t a decentralized school that is run like a business with a profit margin and goals be a lot better than what is in place right now?
“but putting the costs on the taxpayers' backs isn't going to fly with taxpayers who have no schoolage children, or sense of civic responsibility.â€, we already do this in my state in other states too. I have to pay for two school systems that I will never have a kid in every year through my property taxes and I feel this is completely unfair to me not because I have no kids in the system but rather I want accountability and will never have it.
About ten years ago, I had a really big discussion with a very liberal friend (yes I have them) and made a comment that I like the voucher system but agree with him on the failure of any voucher system could have in the present system. I convinced him that the voucher system is a good start but what is needed for a voucher system success is that the tax money must never ever leaves local control - which he agreed. So what if you want your kid to go to a school in another city or county, that money will follow the kid, from the tax payer to the school directly (even if you home school the kid, the money is for the kid) – no going to the federal government then returning, no going to the state capital then returning. This system actually is used in other parts of the world, one place is France.
For some reason I admire the French for two things, the idea of choice and their nutrition program of the late 19th century. Now if it can work in France, why not here? Can’t we at least try it?
