(06-13-2017, 01:19 PM)HURRICANE!!! 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.

So, instead of the Gov investing in their public school system, they are going to increase their budget by 20x to pay for each child (~$8k per year) to go to a private school.   BRILLIANT !!!  That equates to $384,000 to put a family with 4 kids through 12 grades of schooling at $8k per year.   Let's assume there are 600 kids combined total per grade at Raines & Ribault.   600 kids x 8,000 per year each x 12 grades = $57,600,000 cost per year to the Gov to send the Raines & Ribault kids to the new private school now being subsidized by the Gov.

(06-13-2017, 12:53 PM)JaguarKick Wrote: Both of us consistently recieve very impressive evaluations.  But according to the definition most outsiders have, we're part of the problem because our school performs poorly.