[Jim from C-Town]

Well, I am in Cleveland where we actually have a voucher system for the city. There are a limited number and are for poor residence only. However, my children and my neighbors and family all go to parochial schools, all have inner city voucher kids in their schools and classes and ALL the voucher kids are held to the same level as the others.

They also MUST pay extras out of pocket.This keeps the parents involved. Even though it is only a couple hundred dollars a year.

They are heavily screened BEFORE they are admitted to the school and are bounced if they become a problem or academically are unsuitable. The voucher kids are as successful as most of the other children in the school. They are also limited to a certain percentage of the school enrollment.

The schools that accept the vouchers are NO NONSENSE. They are one strike and out and are among the best schools in the state and the country.

The fact is that every parent should have the opportunity to send their child to the school of their choice. They should have a voucher for their child and the parent should decide which school gets the money. Good schools would succeed poor schools would close. It's called competition and it works every time. A true voucher system would revitalize the inner cities, help to level the field in educational opportunity, and save buckets of money by making public schools competitive both educationally and financially with their private and parochial schools counter parts.

[triumphant values]

There are a limited number...

What happens when we go to an unlimited system?

The fact is that every parent should have the opportunity to send their child to the school of their choice.

They do if they can pay for it. What's wrong with people who can afford things getting higher quality if they can pay for it?

Like I asked before, when did "it's for the children" egalitarianism become a rallying cry for Conservatives?