We are becoming an information and free-trade society.  You can hamper progress, but you can not stop it for long.  It has a life on itself.  Jobs will be created -mostly- in those countries where either (1) technological education is above average to the rest of the world, or (2) labor is efficient (or cheap) and their products are -therefore- less costly.

It is unavoidable that investment -if allow free flow- it would go to those countries that offer economic advantage to the business owners.  An educated labor force will help maintain jobs in America, that otherwise they will move to Asia or Latin America.

The solution is NOT "care free immigration" of foreign workers into America.  Followed by a policy of "giving a blind eye look"  to their visas (as our Government does these days), and allow them to stay as "illegal" immigrants.  So they will work for half the minimum salary, and no benefits.  Even if that were a solution, it is not fair and humane to do so. Therefore, we Americans should not tolerate it.

The solution IS proper academic education of the masses.  Including the children of those who probably will not leave the country (illegal aliens residing here almost as "permanent" immigrants), otherwise their children will be scarred for live.

Although it would be convenient for teachers and students, I do not think we can have quality education without feedback control, and correction.  These means that despite the pain, anxiety and insecurity that test-exams bring, I think there has to be national standards for students and teachers.   Those who do not pass the exams, have to be retrained or moved to a lower level group of academic achievers, not to hamper or undermine the progress of those who have better academic aptitude.  But no student or teacher should be abandoned or pressure beyond their capabilities.  We should strife to have them reach their full potential.  And we should make sure there are opportunities at all levels.

As per the first postulate of my tax doctrine, it should be a right of a taxpayers to get back some of the tax paid to their Federal/State Government and to their School District for education, when they feel that education does not measure up to the academic needs of their children.

Of course, the best course of action would be to provide high-quality public education.  Removing funds to public schools would be an incentive to educators to catapult the quality of their service.  They will have to struggle to improve academic programs, and shine the brilliancy of their professorate, so as to keep the students -voluntarily- in their public schools.

In principle, Public Schools should even be allowed to offer courses at a cost to students.  I know, it sounds like a blasphemy.  First, you might say, if they start charging for something, pretty soon we are not going to have free public education at all.  Even if we put in place strict controls to avoid the creeping up of fees from happening, we could have a double standard where there will be those fortunate, and those who can not afford the services and -therefore- will be unfortunate students.

Definitely, it is costly and inconvenient for a family to have to send their children to a school that is farther away, and where they will have to confront tuition costs, instead of free education.  It would be pain added to injury if we were not to compensate them (if they feel the public school is endangering the professional future of their children). This meets the "better service" requirement of the second postulate of the tax doctrine.

It should -therefore- be their right to get a "voucher" to help pay the cost.  And it is only fair, because they paid property taxes (and a good portion of it goes to pay for public education).

But, why anybody would have a need to take his children out to a "private" school? only because over there they have additional programs?  Yes, perhaps piano or guitar lessons, perhaps more advanced courses in computer sciences, regardless.

My point is , if a Public School perceives that many students are leaving to "private" because of lack of teaching a particular discipline/subject (that would be very expensive if to be offered "free" to all those interested) then the Public School should be allowed to offer those "culprit" courses at a cost.  Those courses could even be fully cost for some, and subsidized for other students (depending on academic factors), as to get more enrollment.

The question then is:  how much the voucher should cover?

Well, we do not want to cannibalize the public education system, by extracting an unreasonable amount of funds (the total of all "vouchers" issued to departing students).  If anything, would be desirable to correct the shortcomings of the system, rather than aggravate the situation.  After all, the public education system is providing a reasonably adequate service to the rest of students, including those from poor and indigent families that have to have -as well- a guarantee to an adequate public education.

The last postulate of the doctrine clearly indicates that no 100% of educational apportionment (of the total property tax, and corresponding portion of the Federal and State taxes) will be refunded on a voucher.  Therefore, it would be to the Government agencies, and statisticians to decide that on a national/state/county level.  Moreover, that rate to be established should -perhaps- should not be changed for some time, say 5 or 6 years.  So, we do not have to go with these costly socio-economic analyses every year, all over again.