You're correct that vouchers still require public dollars - and perhaps as many or more, since the system must be administered by someone in the government.
If programs are cut drastically in the public school system, and D.C. parents in the poorest districts still choose the public school system, who cares? That’s their choice.
That's really not the point. Wintertime keeps claiming that if parents have choice, they'll choose the best ones for their children. The experiences with the DC voucher program don't necessarily support that contention.
I noticed this discussion keeps referring to public schools as if all are in poor, inner cities. There are public schools in middle-class and wealthy townships across the country, too. I guarantee you that, if public schools in the wealthy communities were cut down to the bare minimum, most of those parents would put their kids into private schools. Government-funded education is not necessary everywhere.
Generally the public schools in wealthy communities are successful academically, and aren't the ones people speak of when they speak of public schools failing.
Wealthier schools may sometimes be more liberal socially, depending on their community, but they are usually very good academically.
Also, many of us who teach in public schools teach in areas with a large number of "at-risk" students, rather than in the wealthy schools.
Public education has been a part of the history of this country since before it was a country...the first public education here was mandated in the mid 1600s.
Thomas Jefferson stated that without an educated populace, our system of government could not survive, and he was in favor of public schools.
Being in favor of public education is not necessarily a liberal position, unless you consider Thomas Jefferson to be a liberal.
I can't speak for other people, but most homeschoolers I've met oppose the public school system everywhere. Whether or not a school is successful academically makes no difference to me. What I (and many other homeschoolers, private schoolers, etc.) oppose are (1) the state and the schools overstepping parental rights, (2) the hefty school taxes, (3) forcing us to pay for an agenda we oppose, and (4) public schools driving private and parochial schools out of business.
In my opinion, a revolution in education shouldn't begin in the poor communities. Like everything else, it should start with the wealthy and the middle class. Those higher-income townships should lead the way by moving toward a free-market model of the education system. Once it's established in wealthier and middle-class communities, then the lower-income and impoverished communities might benefit by employing the same ideas.
You may be thinking, There's no way a wealthy or middle class community would want to move to a free market model of education if their public school system is producing good results. But, as school taxes rise, there are demands for school spending cuts. My own township is a good example (hence my screenname). Homeowners here consistently vote against increasing the school budget. School spending increases have been knocked down in many townships in my state because the property owners turned out in such large numbers to vote against them.
Thomas Jefferson stated that without an educated populace, our system of government could not survive, and he was in favor of public schools. Being in favor of public education is not necessarily a liberal position, unless you consider Thomas Jefferson to be a liberal.
First, Jefferson himself isn't here to have the discussion with us. Secondly, his ideas for publicly funded schools were far more limited than the grandiose system we have today.