Maybe I wasn't clear about my answer. I'll try to explain further. Yes, teachers will be laid off. Unfortunately, in the unionized states, it will be done by seniority. The buildings are already there, so that's not an issue. Funding will fall, but so will enrollment, so costs go down as well. I believe that things will change very quickly at this point. Public school will retool, retrain and revamp into a smarter, more efficient and fiscally responsible format in order to compete. If done right and at the right time, I don't think there will be a lasting negative impact on the remaining students. Plus, I think that more local private schools will be started in order to try and claim the tax moneys that those students represent. There will be a place for them. The money is already there. What would help even more is to take school funding off the property tax and make it a new sales tax. That way everybody is paying into the system, rather than just the property owners. I don't even think it would take that much of a sales tax.
I don't care about teachers being laid off. I'm from Wisconsin; and voted for Scott Walker twice. What I'm only worried about the kids that are left in failing schools ... there's still a large number of kids that don't have the advantage an hour morning trek out of their school district, or nifty options to go to private schools. In Wisconsin, that includes most all children in the inner cities, kids the most rural parts of the state and on the Indian reservations.
Moreover a school that is
stripped of its funding cannot "retool, retrain and revamp". You're making an absolutely stupid claim that schools will be able create better curriculums, buy new and better textbooks/equipment, hire solid teachers and maintain the necessary physical facilities
without funding. That’s laughable and quite frankly impossible, and it sacrifices the educations of hundreds of kids.
As if any business, government, football franchise or any other institution can complete revamp itself without having a dollar to its name; you CAN'T poach new employees, new coaches/managers, have the necessary systems and equipment
without funding.
But you haven't answered my question...
Are you saying that we have to keep all of the kids that are presently in failing public schools in order to protect the teachers that are causing the school to fail?
Here's another question...
Are you saying that we have to keep kids in a failing school that could otherwise be put in good schools in order to cater to those that don't want/ can't go to better schools? How does that help the country's problem with lost competitiveness due to failing education?
You're trying to derail.
1. No, we need to keep funding in schools to protect our kids. Again, I'm from Wisconsin. Gov. Walker got rid of tenure and our public school systems have the complete freedom to fire poor performing teaches at will. You're the one making this about teachers, and ignoring the kids.
2. Kids that are deprived of education usually grow up to be gangbangers and shoot up our cities. You seem to believe that we only ought give an primary-level education to those that can afford to have a primary-level education; which is completely contradictory to the whole fracking reason we have compulsory education and a public school system in the US.
There will always be the option to pay a tuition and go to a private school, or to homeschool. That's completely reasonable and is two ideas that I fully support. However if you wish to take a hatchet to the enrollment numbers of our public schools by forcibly deporting kids out of poor performance schools; the most you're going to accomplish is decimating education funding by spreading it paper thin, and making everyone worse off and less educated in the process.