I'd like to add that the double message you get is interesting. Some people in the anti-school movement will tell you "we just want to cut out the waste, and make the schools more efficient." or "I want the schools to do well, but I think my interest group pays too high a proprtion of the taxes" or "They just need to stop wassting money, and they'd have plenty".

But on the other hand, you have the leaders and major activists like Paul Dorr here who come right out and say that their goal is to starve public education to death, destroy it, and replace it with homeschooling and church schools.

If there really IS so much "waste" in the public school system, what makes Dorr and company thing they can starve it to death? and if there is such "waste", why do do they have to make up lies as examples of the waste? Can't they just give real examples?

Also, and I really supposed to believe that a private school that charges between $5,000 and $25,000 to offer fewer classes, fewer enrichment activities, and only accept students that are easily educated...but then yeild only marginally better results are more "efficient" than a public school which spends less than $2000 per student per year?

And they call ME a "Sheeple" because I can't buy that?