Jackson, I completely agree. The end user should be the one receiving the subsidy, not the school.

Of course, regulations on private schools would have to be tightened and there's the sticky situation of whether religious schools should receive vouchers, but the idea itself is sound.

Your right on the money.

People forget that just because education should be available to all, that does not revoke the governments' atrocious handling of the education system.

Here's the problem: We spend over $500 billion on it (for many, they argue this is a number far too small). The problem is that $500b isn't spent properly. Check out this link.

Why is it that countries that spend FAR LESS, get SO MUCH more? The fact is, you can't throw money at a leaky product, filling it with more water.

Private schools - ones that operate under free market economics (ie, if your a good provider of services at an affordable rate, you'll do well) consistently out-preform public education in nearly every way. Their students preform better in the class room, and are far cheaper to educate. Private schools, in 99-00 cost an average tuition of $4,600 per student per year. That's in staggering opposition to the average that was around $8,500 or greater for the typical public school. Mind you, the private schools get $0 from the govt.

So then if we migrated over to private schooling, and provided vouchers or some other means of ensuring children get to goto school, the government would save $200 billion dollars or more per year. Could you imagine the burden of taxes that'd be lifted with $200b less in government spending?

Maybe I'm biased because I was homeschooled, but it really, from my perspective, doesn't make a bit of sense when my mom, who had no college education, taught us part time when she wasn't working, for around $500/yr in expenses (less her time), yet my brother and myselfs' grades were far above the national average - and the same can be said for the other 100 homeschoolers in my area.

In summary: The education system is broken. We're paying too much, and getting too little. Real reform happens when you aren't operating lackluster schools from a government mandate. Competitive schools that vie for enrollment will give us cheaper prices, and better education across the board. The government has a near-monopoly on education. When that is the case, how can you honestly expect them to do the best?

I agree that allowing users to make their own choice is one way to make the education system better ... Indirectly, Alberta has a system (somewhat) like that in that Public, Charter and Catholic schools all receive funding in proportion to the number of students they teach; and students can go to schools that are not (necessarily) their closest school if they choose to.

Another problem that people don't really pay attention to is that 1/4 to 1/3 of students don't finish highschool, and less than 1/2 of the remaining students ever go onto college or university, and our secondary education system is focused on preparing students for university. Certainly, we need secondary schools to prepare students for higher education, but we also need to start preparing other students for the "real world" with tradeskills and apprentice training; students may still need training after highschool, but having a reason to remain in school (or to excel in school) might make the education they receive more valueable.

Edit: just to plug Alberta Eductaion a little bit ... This news story is a couple of years old, but it seems that every couple of years the study's findings are replicated:

While I agree that private almost always outperforms public institutions, comparing schools is somewhat unfair.

Private schools are usually home to kids with middle-to-upper level families who are more likely to participate in their child's education, provide a secure environment for learning, and overall, are far more likely to produce a student who will outperform his or her public school counterpart. Let's face it, the public school system has to deal with the dregs of society. Add vouchers and those kids will still underperform. It drags the public system down.

With that said, I still firmly believe in school vouchers and allowing parents who care - and might not have the money - to provide the best education possible for their child. Our current system doesn't provide that to them.

The last thing I would advocate is violating the establishment clause, but the Supreme Court created a 5 point test to determine whether or not a school choice program  would violate the 1st Amendment:

the program must have a valid secular purpose,

aid must go to parents and not to the schools,

a broad class of beneficiaries must be covered,

the program must be neutral with respect to religion, and

there must be adequate nonreligious options.

Their are still roadblocks at the state level, especially when one considers the Blaine Amendments, but I trust parental choice over state-controlled indoctrination centers (public schools).

People should go to school under guaranteed student loans. Loan them the money they need at 0%, and then guarantee it through garnishing there tax returns if they don’t pay it back.

I think we should give everyone the opportunity to go to school. My issue is not with funding education, but with the attitude here of “why not vote for this party? They give me free stuff”.

So do I, if you remove religion. You just know that there will be people fighting to have the government pay for their children to be taught Creationism from kindergarten onward.

Guaranteed student loans is an interesting concept. I haven't really put enough thought into its negatives to decide if it's viable or not.

As for the last sentence, we're pretty much in agreement there. I don't think our political viewpoints differ much.

Hindsight is a wonderful thing, but the fact is you can't change what happened.

As a person who went to school on the tax dollar, I would be proud to know that I am helping other people get the same chances I had.  Getting rich is not going to make me switch my stances on same-sex marriage, abortion, the death penalty, foreign policy, drug laws, and it's not even going to change my stance on taxes.  I LOVE TAXES.  Not because I'm broke right now.  But because I'm fiscally liberal as hell.

I've worked before.  I couldn't get financial aid until I was 24, because that's when the department of education considered me an independent for some stupid reason.  For the years before that I was going to community college and working 2 jobs at once.  And I was a waiter, so I even got taxed on my tips.  And they taxed my tips before I gave 10% of them to the bar, 10% of them to the foodrunner, and 15% of them to my busser.  So I got taxed on 100% of the tips even though I got to keep 65% of them.  But I never complained, because I was making way more money than the rest of them.

Ask Warren Buffet how becoming the 2nd richest man in the world made him stop voting for Democrats.  Oh wait, he endorsed Kerry (even donating insane amounts of money) and now he supports Obama.  Not all rich people switch parties and start voting from their wallets.  Many people think there are many more important issues than taxes.  Please don't assume I'll change my mind when I make some real money.  Even if I agreed with McCain's stance on the economy, that would be the only issue I agree with him on, and there are too many other issues I care about.