And he gets the idea that financing and provision of public goods are separable.

Bremer applies a narrow definition of "public education" that equates it solely with the monopoly system of government-run schools; thus any criticism, justified or not, is seen as criticism of "public education" instead of what it is � criticism of one system of delivering skills and knowledge. Criticism is seen as an attempt to "kill public education." Not true. Public education is more than "public schools."

RTWT.

In a related vein, Matt has a followup to Michael Boucher's guest post here last month. Matt concludes:

Whether the topic is social studies or math, International Baccalaureate or Advanced Placement, it behooves parents especially to really get to know their children's teachers, principal, district superintendent, and school board. All citizens are stakeholders in the public schools. As Lincoln said, "The philosophy of the school room in one generation is the philosophy of the government in the next generation."

Which is why Paul Samuelson once said, "Let those who will, write the nation's laws if I can write its textbooks." The best way to get parents to act like stakeholders is to give them incentives to do so. Options as those Craig discusses are exactly how one provides the incentives.

For the few people (very few, in fact) who wrote asking why I posted Boucher's essay: The discussion that followed it was exactly the discussion I wanted to see happen. We are strengthened in our views by debating openly with those who disagree with us. The vigor of the comments that followed were commendable and the tone admirable. If Michael or any other educators who might disagree with the views here would like a similar opportunity, please write me (comments at this blog's name as one word dot com.)