Mike Angwin wrote in a message to DAVID HARTUNG:
 MA>       My own support is lent to a voucher system where each
 MA> jurisdition, be that jusrisdiction local, county, or state,
 MA> collects and dispurses, without condition, a voucher to the
                             ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
 MA> parent of each school age child.
The two words that I've emphasized there are going to be the killer.  There 
is *no* government program that *EVER* disburses funds "without condition",  
and the higher the level of that government involved the worse the strings 
are.
After all,  they've gotta be responsible for the way they're spending our 
money, right?

 MA> The institutions which exist today as public schools would be 
 MA> free to continue to operate as publically held corporations if 
 MA> local communities desired to operate them as such, but their 
 MA> incomes would be whollely dependent upon the parents of 
 MA> children electing to use those institutions and the vouchers 
 MA> they obtained without the use of force to compel attendence.
I don't see this scenario as being at all likely.  What way do you see to 
persuade (if not compel) governments at all sorts of local levels to go with 
this approach when they're now used to supporting schools from *all* 
taxpayers?
Worse yet,  in some instances,  is stuff like what we have around here.  In 
addition to the usual patchwork of local governments we also have school 
districts that appear to have equal taxing authority,  local taxes are almost 
equaled if not exceeded by the assessments from those guys...  :-(
email: roy.j.tellason%tanstaaf@frackit.com 
--- 
---------------