Question about what Obama just said.

[mrstickball]

That is not what he is proposing---he is saying here is 20k k paper for you to give to the school that teaches your child—that’s the only government money they get

Now if in that school district you have 4000 students and of them only 275 are special needs and your district is over 4000 square miles how can you support those children with that system?

b/c all private schools severely limit the amount of special need students that they let in b/c it will reflect on the test scores and the over all standing of the school

b/c the sad truth is more parents would care about getting x student into x school b/c it looks better then they would about weather the other children get a chance at an equal education

and those numbers only get worse as you move towards intercity schools

“The problem is that the government is mandating a be-all-end-all solution for both normal kids, troubled kids, and special kids”

You nailed it on the mark there

In my wife’s school district due to no child left behind they are not allowed to hold a student back unless the parents consent (even if they are at a third grade reading level going into the 5th grade) and they punish the teachers b/c that student is not at grade level

They figure b/c student x that has a great gene stock, wonderful home life, loving and caring parents, and the family network to increase education drive every student should be able to be like them

Regardless of the fact that some student have no home life, have to worry about the next meal, have no family support, and sometime don’t even have a home to go to….

But according to the government and many ill informed adults that shouldn’t effect the kid, it must be the teachers fault for that

 

 

 

 

Red - That's what Mafoo is proposing, which may not be the best idea (although it's better than what we have now, which is to give every school near the same amount of money, regardless of how good/inefficient they spend it, demanding across-the-board results). But that's not what I would do. I would merely offer an 'education voucher' which would ensure that, regardless of your childs needs, the right to a competent education by a well-trained, private staff of individuals. 

In the case of 'regular' students, their parents would do their best to pick the best local schools available, based on the cirriculum sets they offer, sports they allow, and various other aminities. Private/Business-run schools would compete for YOUR child's education, and not the other way around: your kid competing for his education.

In the case of troubled/developmental difficult students, there would also arise special schools suited for their needs. Although they may involve more difficult manpower projections, you would have a class of teachers suited for such developmental difficulties. The greatest atrocity we're comitting is by forcing every teacher to teach students of different backgrounds the same stuff, even if they're autistic or have major developmental/behavioral issues...All without proper education on handling those problems. In a free market, you develop specialist skills based on the teacher, and pay accordingly. With more money available for special ed/troubled kids, teachers would get paid more, therefore want to have the special skillsets needed to education such kids...And both sides benefit - the teacher, the student, and the taxpayer, because we're not forcing strict, mandated laws for every school, even if they all face different problems and student compositions.

Black: And I agree there are way too many issues with how the govt. handles education. That's why I have an issue with the government monopolizing education. If your in a bad neighborhood, your pretty much SOL for your education, and will be forced into a bad life - a urban/rural caste system if you will, where suburban kids get the best, urbans get the worst, and rural get whatever they have. Why is it that way? Because there's 1 school in the district, and they have no real economical motivation to do better. If there was more competition, then they would have to hire the best, teach the best, and help the worst, in order to survive.

It's kind of the way that we see the retail chain work: We have botique stores (Gamestop), general stores (Wal-Mart) and discount stores (Dollar General/Odd Lots). They all sell retail goods, but they have unique ways of presenting their services, and attending to their customers needs. Education could be the same way. In your example of the 275 spec-ed kids in one very large district, there are multiple ways you could handle such an issue..You could build smaller spec-ed schools suited to handle only a few dozen kids, and work out different hours/staff rotations to suit them, or many other ways...At any rate, if it's a business, and there's money to be made, then business will find a way to be profitable. Worst case scenario, then the government steps in and has public spec-ed schools that are funded by the government. But in that scenario, we are still paying far less than we are now thanks to more efficent schools, and our kids are getting better education.

Mesoteo - Does your state have state-required insurance? I think that's a good example of how to look at the difference between govt-monopolized education, and a govt-mandated requirement. In Ohio, we have many kinds of insurance companies that fight tooth & nail over your insurance dollar...We have online companies like E-Surance which are blindingly cheap, Safe Auto, which only specializes in state-minimum insurance, and many others. Our insurance rates are pretty low, and we benefit from the saftey of insurance, and the advantages of competition. I believe the same could be done with education, among other areas.