[Aquinasfan]

"It is not my job to raise the brat, that is why I send him to school." The parents have a ultimate responsiblity to raise their child and to see that he is educated.

You are correct. But what message does society send to parents when people with guns take children away from them at age five to be schooled?

On the other hand, a voucher system respects parents' fundamental right to be the primary educators of their children. Our system of compulsory schooling is appropriate for a totalitarian regime, not a free society.

[TXBSAFH]

Agreed. My children will be going to a private Christian school. Vouchers or no vouchers they will be properly schooled.

[valkyrieanne]

But what message does society send to parents when people with guns take children away from them at age five to be schooled?

Think it through. What would the consequences be if there were no compulsory attendance laws? (By the way, compulsory attendance does *not* rule out homeschooling or private education. *Nowhere* are children forced to go to public school.)

On the other hand, a voucher system respects parents' fundamental right to be the primary educators of their children.

Yes, at *additional* taxpayers' expense, above and beyond what we pay now (which is enough, thank you.) Those who think vouchers are ever going to be available to the middle classes are living in a fantasy world. They are at present a *welfare benefit* given to the poor, and they don't come anywhere near to the cost of paying for a non-Catholic private school education.

Our system of compulsory schooling is appropriate for a totalitarian regime, not a free society.

Really? People in totalitarian societies get to homeschool their kids & teach them anything they wish re: curriculum and political views? They get to send their kids to any religious schools they want (even pernicious ones that teach jihad and black out Israel on their maps?) People in totalitarian societies get to move freely from one community to another, so they can exercise their own *free choice* to spend more for a house in a better school district? (I thought that was "the American way" - exercising one's economic freedom - pulling yourself up by your bootstraps, etc.)

What's *socialistic* is telling middle class people they have to support yet another transfer of income above and beyond the common-school taxes to poor people who have children out of wedlock, use drugs, and do not pull themselves up to move to better neighborhoods with better schools. The proof is in the pudding - in every "failing inner city school" across the country there are immigrants (mostly from Asia, but some Euros like Bosnians) whose children *do* succeed in those schools, and who aren't in them very long, because they economically better themselves and *move out.*