Get your favorite beverage, sit back, and join in the discussion
You are not logged in.
You're wrong.
Hey, you told me to tell you. You didn't say I had to actually think you were wrong...
Eric
Online
Jefferson:
I think the only problem with your idea of multitudes of schools is if the idea really caught on any given area could have five or more competing schools. This might work in a large city, but imagine a small rural district with only a few thousand people tops. Would there be enough population to sustain that many different school systems? You need administration, teachers and facilities for each and it would not be fair to expect "System A" to help pay for "System B"
Offline
Hence where the competition comes in, Storymaster.
Any system where there was both choice, and federal funding, would mean that the school money was put in the hands of the parents. (Not literally, obviously, but in the form of a voucher that they would give to the school of their choice.) HOWEVER: There is nothing saying that the school would accept the voucher as payment in full.
And the truth is that our schools waste a shitload of money. More can be done with far less, if efficiency is one of the goals. It isn't in our school systems, because there are too many bureaucratic hoops to jump through.
In your example of a small rural district... all the requirements get smaller, too. A large urban school will have two or three administrators, a large office staff, a few dozen teachers, and a couple thousand students. In a small, rural school, you would have a single administrator, maybe one office worker, probably less than ten teachers, and maybe a few hundred students. What is required in these smaller facilities is flexible personnel: teachers capable of teaching more than one subject. The facility/equipment costs will be commensurately smaller, because the school is smaller.
It could work, but I don't see it happening, unfortunately.
Eric
Online
http://news.yahoo.com/video/us-15749625 … s-17178226
Another stupid issue.
Offline