As I was reading and contemplating Bob Aagard's world here wherein he posits about the absence of media attention to key questions surrounding pro-voucher backers, I followed his link to the accountabilityfirst blog that asked similar questions.
Both just caused me to think of more questions that I wish someone would answer.
For example, why are Richard and Linda Eyre so supportive of vouchers for private school? They don't seem to have a financial stake (yet) in private school operations, though they do sell a pre-school curriculum, noted here.
(As an aside, I noted that the Eyre's "value of the month" is self-reliance. Can someone please tell me what is self-reliant about parents accepting public taxpayer funds to pay for private school? Wouldn't a truly "self-reliant" parent eschew tax dollars and dig deeply into his or her pocket, in a self-reliant way, and pay for their own children?)
Another question for the media: Do PCE, or the Eyres, have trademark permission from Nabisco, et. al. to use Oreo cookies in their demonstrations and TV ads?
If vouchers are so good that stacks of Oreo cookies can be used to demonstrate how wonderful vouchers supposedly are for the public schools, why aren't the Double Stuffed Oreos used? That would make vouchers twice as good! YUM.
Or if truth in advertising is applied to the Eyres' commercial, why are they not forced to use the Oreo 100 calorie snack size since vouchers really are NOT good or yummy for public schools?
Sigh. We may never know.