Login

MalabarJag · 06-13-2017, 11:36 AM

(06-13-2017, 10:43 AM)flsprtsgod Wrote:
(06-13-2017, 10:32 AM)MalabarJag Wrote: 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.

I was explaining the concept of individual choice in education. It's not a perfect solution, but any good parent would not send their child to a diploma mill. If there are waiting lists to get into good schools then that creates a demand that would spawn new good schools. As I said, there's still a problem with bad parenting, but that's true now.

According to the panel, schools in 1983 were well below the quality of schools in the 1960s. They have come down even further. What has changed is ever increasing federal government meddling, not just in education but in a welfare system that encourages the creation of single parent families.

"Why should I give information to you when all you want to do is find something wrong with it?"