The baby boom generation is universally accepted among sociologists as 1946-1964. It was so named because of the particular increased rate of births, which started and stopped those years.

Culturally, baby boomers are recognized as being "early" and "late," and as many here would attest, the early boomers (1946-1956) had an entirely different experience and "personality" than the late boomers (1957-1964). It seems that Ms. Loh is a late boomer (like myself).

Vouchers as a way of potentially encouraging private enterprise, is a neat idea. As a way to insure the goal of public education to provide adequate education to all citizens, it's problematic on several levels.

For starters it drains resources, both human and financial, from the public system, which only insures a continued downward spiral in educational spiral for those who decide to stay in the system.

Perhaps most importantly, though, is the danger of putting education to the whims of the free market. Since the government can't really prevent private schools from charging whatever amount it wants for their services (assuming we accept the "for profit" model that many are now advocating, though even if these are nonprofit institutions it stands to reason that the more money a school charges, the more toys and good teachers it can buy up), it'll be even less likely that poor parents will be able to keep up with the costs of a good education. Check out the state of higher education if you don't believe me. No amount of financial aid at many top schools can cover the through the roof costs of college education these days, unless you (get this) go to a public university. (And even then, it can still be a challenge.)

Do you think that the bureaucracy of the voucher system is going to be able to keep up with the constantly rising costs of private education for poor students? I assume, of course, that the government will be covering 100% of financial need?

Furthermore, how will the government insure accountability? Worth noting that many who argue that public schools need to be accountable through testing are more than happy to put students in private schools that have no such system of accountability.

Also worth adding that vouchers are a great way to break down the separation of church and state and force students into preexisting Christian parochial schools. In Louisiana, Bobby Jindal, himself a hardcore right wing Catholic, pushed a voucher system through which only serves to aid leaders in the religious right while undermining education for everyone else.

If families want to send their kids to private schools, fine by them. But not on the government dime when public schools so desperately need it.

The Phila. School District has the largest charter school experiment in the nation. How has it done? Not too well. Some good schools, some bad, some school leaders clearly violating laws amidst lax ethical guidleines.

The bottom line,however, in our NCLB world is this: Do charter schools drive achievemement better than public schools in Philadelphia? The answer is NO. Surprising? Not really. When charter schools are required to educate the same challenging population as the regular public school, they face enormous obstacles as well. That isn't to say change can't happen. However, it takes a mentality that looks beyond blaming teachers and unions and demands that real change happen in curriculum, teacher/student engagement and school climate. These changes can occur whether the school is charter or a regular public school.

As a note for those who are interested, one of the biggest agencies to take over schools in Philadelphia, the Edison group, just lost the control of several schools due to its inability to raise scores, promote a safe environment (a boy was raped by another student at Stetson Middle School), or to control costs.

My kids went to public elementary schools in Encinitas and Cardiff, some of the best elementary schools in San Diego County. Parents with values similar to yours.

The classrooms were beautiful because the kids spent time decorating it. Art projects consisted of cutting paper and carefully gluing it together so all the kid's projects looked good on the wall. They all looked the same too.

No, they don't learn how to hold a pencil. I complained, and was ignored.

They don't learn to tie their shoes in kindergarten. Not enough time.

"Graduation" from kindergarten (yes, they have a graduation ceremony) had all the kids showing what they learned in reading readiness. Reading readiness consists of pretending to read. Each kid "read", actually recited from memory, a page from a book to an audience of encouraging parents, oohing and aahing.

I along with a half dozen other parents tried to get the kids to play basketball after school. Nope. Risk assessment determined that, since we weren't a "league" the liability to the district was too high. The message I got from the district was loud and clear:

Don't even think of doing anything with education unless you are a licensed teacher or day-care provider."

Volunteer opportunities existed for collating paper and cutting colored paper for the kid's art projects, this in a district where 40% of the parents had graduate degrees.

I think the worst part of all this is that the district actually was giving the parents what they wanted.

I am so glad to see Ms. Loh take up this cause, its about time someone did!!

We have returned to the era of the 1950's in terms of school segregation. This had been well-documented to not be healthy for kids on BOTH sides - rich and poor. One of Martin Luther King's main agendas was school integration, we forget that. Our world is not segregated, why should a child's school be? Public school offers kids fantastic lessons in Tolerance and Color Blindness - two of the most important lessons (and tools) in life!

Ms. Loh's comparison of Starbucks to private schools is dead-on. Parents want to buy their kids into a safe, sheltered (and segregated) environment, an environment that is out of touch with the world. The Laurie Anderson analogy is hilarious. But I have seen parents who ARE Laurie Andersons, who are the first in line at the private schools when they have kids. Contemporary artists have proven notoriously wimpy when it comes to engagement in their communities (real engagement) and quickly return to the values of their own, segregated childhood. It has proven very hard for them to be "progressive" when it comes to their own children.

And then, they are easily swept up by the marketing ploys for the "Progressive" private schools. I wrote a letter to the Pasadena Weekly that said something like: "progressive" and "private school" are contradictory terms. They did not publish my letter, of course. And heres the rub - the Pasadena Weekly, our "Alternative" weekly - does not support our public schools at all, only the private schools. This is something I would not have guessed could have happened in a million years, and yet there you have it! The Alternative weekly is supporting private education!

The urgency of the movement is very, very clear. The Right has taken advantage of the private school movement to increase its ongoing campaign against public education. They have hooked into the Media, and in new and dangerous ways, are attacking public education - often by literally scaring parents off with "horror stories" containing half-truths and outright lies.

This is crazy! Public schools are essential for our children, for our communities and for our entire country! Its way past time to support our public schools!