i don't see the real difference between "private non profit" and "government" in this case.

If its regulated by the government, then what's the diff? I take it if the government gives the income tax to this private entity, then it also gets a say in who runs it.

yeah, that wont work, the private sector only cares about profits, they wont accept most of the poor kids who have take out loans to pay for there education, the private schools could also decide they dont want to teach art or music or history, what then? the problem is that the private sector does not have the students best intrests at heart, as for parents, unless theyre teachers, theyre unlikely to know what there child should or shouldnt learn

Your such a nut job.

First off, every parent gets a voucher for each child. It does not mater if they are poor or not. The child to the school, is 20k. They don't care how much money there parents have.

Poor people live in more concentrated area's, and tend to have more children. So schools in poor areas will have more money, they rich ones.

In capitalism, profit rules. profit is obtained by providing the best service. If you can take your child to any of 10 schools on the local area, the ones that don't provide the best education fail.

Schools will not provide the best services out of the goodness of there hearts, they will do it to attract business. It's why the US has some of the best food, stores, hotel service, etc... The consumer demands it, thus those who survive do so by providing it.

And your extremely misguided if you think parents of all incomes are not extremely interested in there child's education. Just because your poor, does not mean you don't care, or understand what your kids should learn. Stop listening to the media.

I look at it the same way I look at corporate retirement. Most companies hire an outside firm to handle there pensions (might be all, not sure if it's a law or not).

The reason for this is so your pension is not controlled by the same people you work for. Your company can't steal from the till so to speak. Also, if your company goes belly up, your pension is not effected.

It's a good way to keep government out of the pot.

Too expand on my last post...

It goes to the fundamental issue I have with Government taxation and spending.

There is a cost to run the country. Taxes should be collected to pay those costs. That's not how it works however. Government determines what percentage it thinks people should pay, and then it looks at those dollars as income to do with what they want.

Government often looks at all dollars as theirs. My purposed plan keeps them form saying “well we need 30 billion for this program, we can just take it from education and give them an IOU”

No, no you can't. It's not your money. It's the peoples money, and they have already spent it... on education.

I'm biased on this, as I was homeschooled my entire education, and my education costs were less than $5,000 (if that) for my entire 11-year education (I graduated early), so take my answers with a grain of salt.

Nothing I say is going to change how bad the system is. Taxpayers and voters keep saying they want to fix education, but never want to swallow the tough solutions, as they don't want to go through it, or understand the benefits of something different than what they grew up with.

What I would do is the following:

• Allow a 'freedom of education' bill to pass, allowing unfettered access to students and their families to school vouchers. Every citizen would be allowed free access to the school(s) of their choice, or compensation for homeschooling.
  
• Make vouchers a merit-based system: If the student(s) make good grades, then the school gets a bonus based on a litany of requirements: Previous educational trends in area, student composition, special education needs, ect. This way, developmental-difficult youth are still treated as important, if even just from a financial aspect for the privatized school.
  
• Demolish the NEA, which is the largest, most powerful union in America. This would root out much of the cancerous teachers inside the current system, as businesses strive to have good teachers that teach from their heart, and not just the textbook. The NEA is one of the major issues with the education system in America: drops in test scores started when the NEA began to reduce their standards on what made a qualified teacher, and began to retain poor teachers due to seniority, and not skill.
• Destroy districting lines that force kids to get bad education in bad neighborhoods...Allow free competition regardless of area.
  
• Improve the abilities of the Department of Education as a regulatory body over the newly privatized school system...Ensuring that schools are educating their students properly: not that the same textbook(s) need used in every classroom, but all are getting a fair shake at their education. 

In the end, the issue is that the government maintains a near-monopoly in the education industry, backed by the most powerful union in America, with over 3 million unionized employees. If you have teachers with too much job security, they stop teaching out of desire, and teach because it's a paycheck...Not a way to go for one of the most important jobs in America.

The government should not be the one controlling all aspects the education industry, but they should regulate it, as they do with many entities such as the FAA, FCC, FDA, and EPA.

Furthermore, under such a system, we would see American schools improve in such a way that we stop graduating kids just to get them out of sight and out of mind, but truly have a desire to give kids education they deserve, regardless of socio-economic standing. Schools that compete by utilizing the best teachers, the best cirriculum, and the best methods will educate the best generation of Americans yet. But it cannot come about without competition....Which due to districting, lack of choice, and tenure of teachers, will never happen under the current system.

Ban teachers from unionizing.
Apply the Hatch Act to Teachers to prevent them from being involved in partisan politics.

its hard to ban a group of people from getting together, lol.

Though I do agree that the teacher's union is too powerful and too bureaucratic. Its near impossible to fire a long tenured teacher, even if that teacher sucked. One reason is that the teacher can have the union file a grievance in behalf of the teacher and the legal hoopla is such a huge mess that most schools don't even bother.

That Guy - The issue is that the NEA dabbles in politics, despite being funded by the government...Not a good thing to do. That's like a lobbyist joining the presidents cabinet. Maybe that's a bad analogy since it's too late, but :-p

The NEA is just too big for it's own good. 3.2 million members yields a lot of clout, which can choke out proper negotiations for a workable environment.

Personally, I don't think govt. employees should have unions at all, since they are governmental, and therefore their 'union' is with the citizens that pay their wages.

The US, without question has the best University system in the world.

Yet everyone complains about how the US educational system precollege education is dismal. Hmmmm, now what could the major difference be?