It's unfortunate...

[Weltall]

Originally posted by A Black Falcon
Why would it fail?

Look at the current state of for-profit schools.

Yes, let's... they're far, far, far superior to public schooling in almost every aspect. It's a well-known fact that children in public schools outperform public-school students dramatically, and recieve a far higher quality education. That fact cannot be disputed with any semblance of credibility.

Or, rather... look at how the idea hasn't worked well at all and the companies are beginning to admit that maybe it wasn't such a good idea after all to try to run a for-profit school. The idea just doesn't work in a school... its not really something that you can make much money off so the business community isn't interested.

On what do you basis this? It seems to totally contradict reality in all-new ways. Private schools have always been successful, and a vouchers program would only add to that success. I would MUCH rather my tax money used in this way to help children than I would be seeing it wasted on public education.

People like me say that we should be fixing the problem by increasing school spending and doing our best to improve bad schools... [/B]

Yet again I have to repeat myself: Funding is not what is killing public education. It's the increasingly lower education standards and lack of discipline. How in the world will money fix that? How can funding be a problem when public education sponsors such worthless things like sex education and multicultural studies? Besides being at the expense of core curriculum?

Kids aren't failing school for lack of money. They are failing because liberals have ruined the system with revisionism and multiculturalism, and have lowered standards so that anyone can pass. It makes for artificially good grades in the classroom and disaster in the real world, and even though I've addressed this point at least three times you have ignored it every single time and instead continue to claim that low funds are the problem.

If you were to completly privatize schools there would only be schools in areas where whoever is funding the schools would know they would make a profit. This would mean that many remote areas with smaller populations would not be served and in some cases would have to travel for miles to go to school when if the system was public and not for profit a school likely would have been there.

Also the system may end up like your health care system where the rich are served first, rich people will get to go to the better schools and once again poor people will be left behind.

If they choose people should be able to go to a private school, but they shouldn't recive any state funding for it, instead the state can continue putting the money into the public school system.

That would be the case if not for vouchers, which, if generous enough, could easily support the placement of private schools in rural areas.

And if you don't think rich kids get better public education than poor kids already, you're living in dreamland. Sure, wealthier children would go to better private schools, it goes without saying. But private schools for less-wealthy children, while maybe not as great as the aforementioned, would be leaps and bounds better than the rotting public school system which cannot help them at all. Private schools would have stricter hiring criteria for teachers and increased discipline, and near-complete control over curriculum.

In esscense, you are against better education for the poor. You are saying we should sink more money into public schools, a solution which has never worked at all, and would further damn the poor to terrible education, just because you want more government control over education, and it is harder to force liberal agendas on students when the government cannot control the curriculum.