I fail to see how this will work the way you are presuming. Considering the median family income in the US is ~$50,000, roughly 3/5 of which is attributed to the father, what will the point be in a mother working 9-5 to make $20,000 and ship their child to school for $20,000 the government gives them. Rather than simply stay at home and pocket that $20,000.

Either way the family will be making $50,000, only one way their expenses are $20,000 more and the other involves the mother being at home 40 hours more a week, accomplishing more household tasks and essentially returning us to the 1940's.

It wouldn't necessarily be the wife however, as in my household I'm the one earning the 2/5ths and would have little problem being a stay at home daddy/teacher. In fact, being an uber-nerd I have a strong feeling I'll be teaching more math and science skills to my offspring than any educational facility anyway, and having worked as a writer I know I'm going to be teaching far better English skills at an early age than any primary school education will give my kids at a 30:1 child:teacher ratio. So being paid $20,000 to stay at home and do what I'd be doing in my free time anyway, seems like a win-win.

I am assuming that it's the public school system we're talking about here. The $20,000 is from our taxes. You can very well choose to stay at home and educate your children yourself and pocket the $20k, if that works for you. In my opinion, we seldom learn everything from 1 or 2 sources. You can provide your offspring with math & science but what if your offspring is also interested in music, language, literature, drama etc.? Or any other subject that is not offered in the school system?

I am just advocating for the child. As parents we're in the best position(mostly) to judge what our children's needs are.