MrVicchio

Hello troll, you didn't read the thread did you?

__________________
Us Navy Veteran. AerographersMate 2nd Class (AW) Mr.Vicchio, At your service!

"What's so great about the Constitution anyway?"-1069

shuamort

Name calling? I see why you don't like school.

I read the thread and your ignorant piece of claptrap and shot it down as the pigeon of retardation that it was. Anything else?

MrVicchio

You read the title and did nothing else. You shot nothing down, but if you want to stand by your post as an example of your intellectual prowess of debate, hey... that's all on you.

So what's wrong with the plan? What area bothers you so much and why?

At what point did I state kids don't have a right to be educated? How do you in anyway come to that conclusion based on the opening post?

Kernel Sanders

That's no solution - "Maybe it will get better." What happens if it doesn't? What happens if providing school to a certain area is just plain unprofitable and no private corporation wants to touch it?

shuamort

1. Take the money each district spends per child now. Say, for argument sakes it's 10k a kid per year (I'm using a made up number shush you) so for each child enrolled, the school would get that much money.
OK, so the school is still getting the same money that it was already getting. Of course, what if the children go to private schools, are those funding as well, or are you just talking public schools? The assumption made is public and I'll go with that unless you state differently. Fine, public schools are getting the financial support that they always have.


2. Each School would be then given over to a private company.
And this is where it gets all orange-fingered Cheetos™ dust here. Unless the private company is extremely highly regulated, this is going to be a failed system. What would stop a school from being subsidized by businesses whose interests are not in the benefit of education?


3. Each School would have to have their curriculum posted on line, and available on request to any parent or potential students guardian.
How detailed would these curricula be? Currently, I can access high level details of all three of our kids who are enrolled in public schools.


4. Each School would have to list publicly ALL EXPENSES.
That's fine, will we need to hire an additional person to do that as it seems like quite a bit of work?


5. Each School would post its student’s grades, test scores and teachers education levels.
Our public schools already do that. Well, the high school does the grades of tests and homework as well as bios of each of the teachers. The elementary school sends home all of the work done over the course of the week with the grades and tests with a form to be signed by the parent and returned to the school. Our two who are in elementary school also have daily agendas which need to be reviewed and signed daily as well.

6. The markets would determine success and failure. If a school is unpopular, parents won’t send their kids there, no kids means no money.
This already happens, at least in Minnesota. Our oldest daughter goes to a better high school than the one that she "should" go to. Funding is per capita based and so the school she goes to gets the money and the other one doesn't. Of course, the problem is that the better schools gets filled up. So some students have to go to "lesser" schools. The open market may eventually correct this, but if there are no other options, the lesser school is still going to get students. Back to square one for the unlucky ones, right?


7. NO BUSINESS running a school would be allowed, in any shape, fashion or form to lobby, gift, or provide money, or resources to political candidates or elected officials. EVER.

Fine.

8. Schools could teach, whatever they want. It’s the parents decision what their children learn, and it is up to the parents to be informed.

Here's the other part which is extremely reckless. Informed doesn't give the parents power at all. Since there is no real regulation, a school can start passing students without teaching them anything as well. Sure, there is accountability on the parents' side, but that can only go so far. What do you do if the school that is run by a business decides it's not fiscally in their best interest to teach science and replace it would religion and let's say that that religion is Scientology. The school is great in all other aspects and other schools join in and soon the marketplace isn't catering to what they should be teaching and there are no other options?


9. Teachers Unions would be abolished and barred except in those states that allow unions by law. (even then I would try to find a way to ban them)

I'm not pro-union at all, but if teachers want to enter into one and the businesses want to allow that, why would you want to dictate those issues still?

10. Parents would be barred from giving to, or paying schools to let their kids attend.
So, it's a lottery then if one's child would get into the "good" school since there are limited amounts of glass room seating. And, according to your plan, by attending, the parents would be giving the school an extra $10K.

That’s it in a nutshell. The public school system is disaster, the biggest reason is the lack of competition and adults just handing their kids over to the “schools” to teach them. Make parents get involved!

Some public schools are horrific, some are wonderful. The highest rated school in our metro area is a public school. Followed by three private schools whose tuitions start at $25K per year. Is competition making those schools better or is it money? Last year, our oldest daughter graduated junior high school with a class of 54 students. Forty-two of those students had a B average or better and it's definitely not an easy school. There are very few students and electives are limited so most of the class time is in actual and legitimate classes. History, English, science, foreign language, math.

I do think parents need to be more involved in their kid's education. Also, more involved in their children's behavior which if uncheck, turns into the school's problem. The schools having to deal with behavioral issues is completely wrong. If a child is not there to learn, the parents should have to get involved. Disruptive children should be removed from classrooms and their parents should have to deal with them as opposed to the schools.

MrVicchio

The current system obviously is failing, yet you don't want to change it?

Kernel Sanders

Of course it needs to change, but abolishing public schools altogether is a horrendous "solution." Universal primary education is not profitable - it's a prime example of services the government should provide. If you think it is a solution, what is your answer to my previous question?

MrVicchio

You say it'snot profitable, you do realize how much we spend on education each year right?

You can make a profit, right now we do not because it IS a monopoly, because there is no competition! How much do the administrators make? How much over head is wasteful? I tell you right now I could run a school under this program, provide an excellent education, and make a profit.

Kernel Sanders

The massive education budget of the government represents the costs not the profits. In order to be profitable, private schools would need to receive all the money that we already spend on education, and then some. The only place you have proposed that they get money is from the government. Is the government both covering their costs and gifting them a profit? If not where do the companies running the schools make their money?

And where would that money come from?

MrVicchio

I answered how these schools would receive their money, please refer to the first posting.