I don't want to detract from the main thrust of this blog, article, and discussion. However, I hope that people think *very* carefully before running to vouchers as the answer.

It is in the nature of things that he who pays the piper calls the tune. That government money always has strings. Many times, the government has promised money without strings, and every time it has reneged.

Before we start blaming the government, and saying "well, this time we'll just have to do better about making sure that government doesn't break its promise about keeping hands off," we may want to consider that perhaps the government has no *choice* but to start controlling what it pays money for.

Imagine this time-table for school vouchers:

Now:
..In most parts of the country, private schools are left pretty much alone. There are notable exceptions, but generally it is *possible* for SVS type schools (no curricula, students and staff equal owners and participants in the school, open campus, etc) to exist.

Now imagine that a voucher program passed:

Year 1:
..Everyone cheers, and praises the government for freeing up all that money for use by any school...

Year 2:
..The very most selective private schools (the ones that cost $30,000 per year) will gladly take the $10-$15K vouchers and raise their tuition to $40,000. This means that they will remain just as "selective" (keeping the lower classes out) whilst not economically inconveniencing their rich clientèle.
..So lots and lots of tax money is wasted, and those headmasters get larger salaries and buy themselves nice sports-cars. Big deal; people decide that the voucher system is 'worth it'.

Year 3:
..Scandal! The national media reports on Mr. and Mrs. Brown, who run the 'Greenback School.' The school finds less discerning parents to send their kids, and declares that the school will teach their kids a trade. Indeed, Greenback school *does* teach them several trades.
..Students can choose to take Mrs. Brown's 'Sweatshop 101' class, which sells off the class projects to clothing stores in order to help the school to
afford an 'even higher quality education'. They could also take Mr. Brown's class in migrant farming, burger flipping 101, or coal mining (mixing economics, geology and gym)!
..Where does all this money go to? Why, to guarantee that the 'Greenback School' can afford top quality teachers like Mr. and Mrs. Brown, and of course all of the parents (the ones who are paying the government "free money" vouchers to the Greenback school) come in to give talks at a guest-lecturer's rate of $500 per hour. Parents who choose to spend their vouchers at Greenback School are invited to give up to eight such guest lectures each year.

Year 4:
..Shocked by the 'Greenback School' scandal, congress realizes that it must clearly define what a school *is*. It does so, in such a manner as to try and guarantee that the Greenback School scandal couldn't happen again.

Year 5:
Among the new requirements for a school to operate:
..1. All of the paid staff in the school are licenced teachers, with a bachelors degree in education.
..2. The school does not encourage or allow its paying clientèle (the voucher students) to spend any part of the school day away from the school grounds.
..3. The school insures that during the school day, no more than two hours (for lunch, recess and traveling from class to class) is spent outside of organized school activities.
..4. The school cannot profit from any activity of the students.
..5. The school must explicitly spell out its curriculum, have its curriculum approved by a committee of the Department of Education, and aggressively pursue the curriculum.
..6. All schools must present their students with semi-annual tests in reading, writing, arithmetic and American history. If more than 20% of the students fail the tests for their age group, the school will be closed or put under the stewardship of the public school committee.
..7. The school present a curriculum suited for the needs of each different age group which it claims to serve. That is, it must design and defend a curricula for first graders which is different than that for second graders, which is different from that for third graders, etc.

Sudbury Valley, by these criterion, is forced to close its doors. Without question.

..In other words -- as soon as you start promising someone else's money for something, you had better define what that something is. Otherwise, the peop[le whose money you are promising (the taxpayer) will be ripped off, and forced to pay for something it didn't expect.
..Innovation requires thinking outside the box. Doing things that nobody ever considered. Exploring paths and alleys that nobody else follows. Innovation requires doing something that others consider "unreasonable."
..For this reason, government money cannot stimulate innovation. Because, by it's nature, government money will ultimately come with strings to guarantee the public funds go to "reasonable" uses.

..Please, please, please do not beg the state to interfere any more than it already does, in the freedom and happiness of children! Remember that this whole mess started when Horace Mann and his cronies backed the idea of schools at the taxpayer expense. Please, lets not feed more power over the physically weakest citizens into the hands of the state.

Scott

From the testimony of Orestes Brownson, arguing against the proposal for mandatory schooling in Massachusetts:
..A government system of education in Prussia is not inconsistent with the theory of Prussian society, for there all wisdom is supposed to be lodged in the government. But the thing is wholly inadmissible here . . . because, according to our theory, the people are supposed to be wiser than the government. Here, the people do not look to the government for light, for instruction, but the government looks to the people. The people give the law to the government. To entrust, then, the government with the power of determining the education which our children shall receive is entrusting our servant with the power to be our master. This fundamental difference between the two countries, we apprehend, has been overlooked by the board of education and its supporters.