But, but, but... what do they think about lowering the drinking age! That's the real issue in this race, isn't it? (read: GOP primary campaign sarcasm)

If you lower the drinking age to 18, all our kids will become uselss alcoholics thereby eliminating the need for education in the first place. (No reason not to take the sarcasm farther...)

As a parent I have been watching and participating in the slow change to school choice while the politicians argue about the concept. My kids go to a charter school, a "public school of choice". Friends and neighbors send their kids to magnet schools or public schools outside their home area by taking advantage of the open enrollment program in Colorado. The concept is more about parental involvement than it is about socio-economic factors. It takes time and effort to research schools, sign your kids up on waiting lists if necessary, and volunteer your time to help the school in some way.

Here's a really radical idea that would result in tremendous strides in education in this country.

Let's eliminate public schools entirely. It is NOT my responsibility to pay for the education of Silence's children. I believe that every parent really does want the best for his children. Therefore a parent will get to choose, entirely on a value for cost basis, what school provides the best education. Such competition will result in a drastic reduction of the costs of education and an equally drastic improvement in the quality.

Ok, I am not totally against that idea and the argument that educating my children is not your responsibility is a sound one. Note however that schools are funded primarily by property taxes and the quality of your local school does have an effect on the value of your home. There is also the less directly related value to society as a whole to have an educated population. If you eliminate public education do you also remove the requirement for children to go to school? If schools also are run entirely on a cost/value relationship would many rural schools cease to exist? Would those that remain have any real competition? Would accredidation or state testing still be required? It seems to me that there is a similarity here to the utility industry - in well poplulated areas a market driven competition system would probably work very well. In rural areas I suspect it would not work at all. The reduction in cost and improvement in quality would likely be limitied to certain areas and be accompanied by a drastic reduction in quality in others.

18 year-olds are kids? OK, a matter of perspective I suppose, but by that age they're no longer attending the public schools. By the way, when I was 18 the drinking age in Colorado was... 18. Not much more alcoholic "kids" then than now.

At any rate, the drinking age canard was a GOP primary issue. It should be dead now that we're in the general campaign.