Could the Voynich Manuscript be a private educational system?

[Jorge_Stolfi]

What strikes me most is the contrast between the highly disciplined writing system and the relatively naive illustrations. The text appears systematic and internally consistent, while many drawings look almost childlike or non-professional. ... I would be curious whether other researchers have explored similar psychological, educational or family-based interpretations.

This topic has been extensively discussed, yes.  The first known mention of the VMS -- the letter from Baresch to Kircher -- already includes a guess about what sort of person the Author may have been and what could have been his motivations.

But we are nowhere close to a consensus.  Guesses range from a bored teenager to a secret society of deviant nuns.

One important aspect of that question is whether the Author (the person or group who collected the information, composed the text, devised the script and the "encryption", and conceived the figures) is the same as the Scribe (the person or team who actually put the ink on the vellum).

Opinions vary even on this basic point; but I am quite convinced that they were distinct people.  There is some evidence and some common-sense arguments that point this way.  

I am also convinced that the Scribe did not understand what he was copying.  He knew the alphabet (the Author would have trained him on it), but probably did not even know the phonetic value of each glyph.

I also believe that the Scribe was not a professional scribe, like the monks who copied books "industrially" for sale or special order, or the scribes whose job was to write official decrees and diplomas for public display.   I would guess that he had a "daytime" job that required a lot of writing on paper, where clarity was more important than beauty -- like student, accountant, notary, letter-writer for common folk, etc.  But he had no experience on writing books, no experience with writing on vellum, and no experience in drawing.  His first attempts at drawing the nymphs -- on the Aries and Taurus zodiac pages -- are deplorable, like those of a 10-year-old.  He visibly learned as he went along.

And -- this is highly controversial -- I also believe that most details of the drawing were not defined by the Author, but invented by the Scribe, as decoration -- with "inspiration" from several books provided by the Author, some of which others here have identified.  That includes things like dresses and hats, the shapes of castles and jars and stars, a couple of Cosmo diagrams, and the poses of the nymphs.

Another claim that I believe, but is strongly denied by many here, is that the colored paints were applied many decades after the text and figure outlines were penned -- when the Author was no longer around -- by a later owner who could not read the text; and therefore the colors are arbitrary, without any connection to the contents. 

And there is another aspect about the book that would be highly important for anyone trying to understand it, but is so controversial that I have been prohibited to mention here...

All the best, --stolfi