(06-13-2017, 10:32 AM)MalabarJag Wrote:

(06-13-2017, 09:23 AM)HURRICANE!!! Wrote: @ Eric 

Remind me once again what market you are going to tap into that convinces low (or no) income parents that didn't care about their kids education in a public school to now pay for their kids schooling?   My point is that you just can't shut down public schools just because they have below average or failing performance.  Kids have a right to a free education so if you shut down schools like Raines and Ribault you must provide another free option to those that were impacted; as such, I used a hypothetical consequence in my prior email that those impacted kids would now be bused off to other public schools.   So, what is this great market that you want to tap into that will provide free education?

The money to pay for the schools would still come from the government. Each student would receive an allocation and it couldn't be used for anything but school tuition, sort of like what a SNAP card does for food. The money would be tied to the students instead of the schools, and the students' parents would be free to spend it at any school they choose. Poorly run schools would languish, better ones would thrive. Real competition for students' money = an incentive to improve.

Of course deadbeat parents wouldn't make much effort to maximize their child's benefit, but deadbeat parents also one of the biggest problems with the current government school system.

All that would get you is a series of publicly funded diploma mills and waiting lists to get into the good schools followed by geographic assignment for those students who don't make the cut. You'd also suffer adverse selection as the higher performing schools develop methods to keep lower performing students out so they can keep their ratings high. Getting into high school shouldn't be like getting into college, but every high school should provide the same education to every child at no direct cost.

---