Who says you have to have a metal detector? It might be a good idea to have a couple (that charge would be very small), but I have no idea what the best model for a disciplinary school would be (security cameras in every classroom would be my guess). Businesses hire experts who have run schools for many years to figure this out. The parents get to pick which school would be best for their undisciplined brat.
If your argument is that the rich can buy a better education for their kid; well that's the current system (truthfully I don't understand what your argument is. Must be my public school education.). Unless you want to ban private tutors then this will always be the case. The lesson learned from the story posted in the OP is that the lower class has no options when it comes to providing their kids an education. They are stuck sending their kids to some under-funded dump with bad security. The private-voucher system provides hundreds of options to the poorest of people (just like with restaurants). If you want to argue for a public system, you need to argue that one public school must be better then the hundreds of options which will stem from the private-voucher system (like Major was doing).
One would think that specialist schools would exist to gobble up the market of the kids the other schools don't want. Either that or the public schools would have to take them. Is that really so bad though. You get all the kids who have a good chance to succeed and separate them from the problems associated with the problem kids. That gives the kids who value an education the best chance to succeed and allows for the other kids to get more attention on their specific needs now that the school doesn't have to try to make a one size fits all curriculum. Maybe there would be schools that do a real life version of Bunny Colvin's program from the Wire.
Exactly. best school to me means giving a kid the best education they are capable of getting (kids learn a different paces in different ways) . The best education should be dependent on the parent, not a government. That's the environment the voucher system encourages.
It goes back to my point. If you're a business, and you have applicants where you have to bus them further (since bus system is in the current school budget I'd assume it'd be a business cost for schools) and incur more cost, you might not likely accept that applicant. You're also more likely to only open schools in area where the cost (low disciplinary incidents, less need for special needs teachers) is low which will get us back to where we started, good school for kids in the burbs and bad schools for the inner cities.... except we're now subsidizing private school for the wealth, which is as stupid as it sounds.
How do a parent in the inner city get a kid to the school in burbs, I don't want out-lier examples but general trend analysis since this is will be a general policy.
Except the last thing government needs is to SUBSIDIZE THE RICH. If they want to spend money getting their kids a better education, that's good. I'd totally respect that choice, but should the government help them out instead of a child that just need an adequate education? NO.
I do agree with the fact that we'd be subsidizing the rich going vouchers. But my point is that a fair voucher system in the real world, especially in the south is so unrealistic just purely due to geographical/transportation limitations and everyone is so focus on theory and philosophy of the debate to even think about the practicality of the argument. That said, a student that no one wants are not completely innocent themselves, it doesn't make sense to cater to them. There are consequences in the real world too. The current system isn't solving it either (basically what's going on today is what you're describing in the poorer areas).
There are perks to living in seclusion (less traffic, privacy), there are also downsides such as having to drive for an hour to get your mail or groceries. A person doesn't get the perks of living in seclusion and not the downsides. Yes a person who lives in seclusion may have to pay more if they wish for their kid to go to a certain school. Just like they would have to pay more for groceries or the mail (cost of travel). People are not entitled to have things easily accessible to them if they choose to live in seclusion. Parents who have kids with bad discipline have a voucher just like everyone else. Their money is just as good. A business is not less likely to open a school in a specific location. If the customer wants to spend money then someone will offer them what they want to get that money. That's how the private market works. If people want schools close by then there would be plenty of school in the inner city (more actually since thats where most the population is). Same applies for restaurants. Why would the rich be getting more money from the government? everyone would get the same? Are you saying kids from rich parents should get no voucher? If you are attaching the money to the kid (which is what the voucher system does), then it seems unethical to me to penalize the kid because he has rich parents.
I disagree since I work with parents of students every day at my job. Parents with "slower" kids would not want schools with a bunch of other students that are slower and lack discipline. The worst of these parents want the schools to discipline their students and provide them the structure they don't get at home. All the parents would want their students to have the extra scaffolds needed to give their children success and access to the same curriculum as the best schools that the rich students go to. Schools shouldn't be a business period. I do work in a school with plenty of discipline problems work with other schools, administration and teachers which also have discipline problems. Almost no teacher, office staff, faculty, custodial staff, etc. would want to work at a school designed only for students with discipline problems who don't want to learn without a ton of added pay and reward. Why would they? They could always go to one of the other schools which doesn't require the extra work. Use common sense. If you are a custodian and you can work at a school where students want to learn and see school as useful place where they receive something of value and may even take pride in the school that will have less vandalism, litter, theft, etc. why on earth would you want to work at a school for discipline problems where the students don't value or respect the school, and will find destructive ways to blow off steam and anxiety. You can apply that to every single employee. Without added reward which would make those schools more expensive to run nobody will work there.
You quoted me saying the private sector provides what the customer wants. If you think this is what people want then this is what the market will provide. Why do people currently work at community colleges? Why do people currently work at schools with bad discipline? Either a) they don't have the qualifications b) they are getting paid more for the risk c) they like reaching hard to reach kids. you say "use common sense"; well common sense says people already do work in these environments.
Don't b**** and moan . . . when those kids you don't give a **** about. . . put a bullet hole in your kid or your other easy to educate students. Because . .when on lacks options . . .CRIME OPTION is more likely to be the one chosen. This is about building a society. Businesses don't build a society. They help feed it. Too much business and you get a fat bloated system that is dying of clotting arteries and heart disease. Rocket River
Isn't the current system's main problem that people can't really chose where they live as the reality of social and economical impacts keeps them from living in certain districts. If you're saying people who live in certain areas will be disadvantaged, what's the point of the voucher system? The point of a successful business is to MAXIMIZE PROFITS, and REDUCING COSTS is a major component of that. If you're getting the same income per child, I WOULD argue that it's more cost effective to open a school in the good part of town vs. bad part. For example better teacher probably want to live in a good part of town, there for all things equal will take a job at a better part of town, which means quality of teachers per dollar will be worse at the bad part of town. If there are more violence/vandalism, that will increase cost to maintain the school which will come out of the actual education bucket. Actually it's not, look at Sharpstown mall. Do you see a freaking JC Penny opening there again? Do you see a five star restaurant opening in fifth ward? To think that a school operating in lower income areas will offer the same education as a higher income area under the voucher system is absurd. Isn't the current system's main problem that people can't really chose where they live as the reality of social and economical impacts keeps them from living in certain districts. If you're saying people who live in certain areas will be disadvantaged, what's the point of the voucher system? The point of a successful business is to MAXIMIZE PROFITS, and REDUCING COSTS is a major component of that. If you're getting the same income per child, I WOULD argue that it's more cost effective to open a school in the good part of town vs. bad part. For example better teacher probably want to live in a good part of town, there for all things equal will take a job at a better part of town, which means quality of teachers per dollar will be worse at the part of town. If there are more violence/vandalism, that will increase cost to maintain the school which will come out of the actual education bucket. Are people getting money to send their kids to Kincaid right now? Will they with vouchers? Is Kincaid going to open it's doors enrollment to everybody? Now I'd be more ok with the voucher system if 1) The school must take everyone coming to them with a voucher or take no voucher at all (more voucher = more money = ability to expand right?) . 2) The school can not charge people more than the voucher or take no voucher at all. As far as social programs, that's along my line of reasoning as well. Why are the rich in the more imbalance and corrupt countries constantly shuffling money out? Because the society there is unstable and you never know when the ish would hit a fan. There is a lot of benefit in living in a well balanced society, and it's not free.
You are nuts. http://www.thecartelmovie.com/ <iframe title="YouTube video player" class="youtube-player" type="text/html" width="640" height="390" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/gzIfTmD8UUc?hd=1" frameborder="0" allowFullScreen></iframe>
The current systems problems are numerous (teachers aren't paid well and the education sucks). The problem relevant to the OP is that lower income people have no choice in education (home school isn't an option for the poor). The voucher system solves this problem. I am saying people who live in seclusion would have less options just like anything else (groceries an shopping). The current system doesn't give these people options anyways. It is not good business to not provide service to potential customers. Letting a bunch of people sit on their vouchers because their kids have bad discipline is horrible business. Lets say 90% of customers order the #1 combo meal and 10% order the #2; should McDonalds stop serving the #2 and thus ignore 10% of their customers? NO (if you want to add varying profit margins to these products you can. It still applies) Everyone would have the same voucher so everyone would but on an equal playing field. The reason there is no five star restaurant in the fifth ward is because nobody can afford it. How can income be an issue if everyone is getting the same voucher? Unless you plan on banning private tutors then how can income be a factor? It would be bad business to ignore a mass majority of potential customers. You don't have to implement these laws you express above because businesses are not so stupid as to ignore so many people's educational needs. Since people want to be charged what the voucher accommodates, this is what businesses will provide.
Yes people do get additional rewards for working with these students. There are all sorts of school loan forgiveness for teachers who stay in high risk schools for a certain number of years. There are additional home loan breaks for teachers who work in high risk schools for a certain number of years. But the thing is that even in those schools there are plenty of students who aren't lacking in discipline and aren't "slow". That wouldn't be the case at a school specifically designed for those students. So even though the existing high risk schools wouldn't be as hard as the ones specifically designed to reach the students you described they already have to provide special benefits to people who work there. Right now those are paid by the govt. Having to do just that or even more by a private citizen business man is going to cut into his profits. So it isn't worthwhile for the business man to do it.
So you support the cheerleader murdering Mom? She was just trying to eliminate her daughter's competition. You know...give her the proverbial leg up. Sometimes, lines must be drawn. You call the law "zany." What would your solution be? A free for all where you can send your kids anywhere? If you really think about it, I am sure you will see the administrative problems that such a system would cause. Rather than treating the symptom, we should treat the problem. We must find ways to turn bad schools into good schools. I personally believe that when you have students that are dangerous and/or disruptive to the learning process, they should be sent to an alternative school. That way, good students in a poor neighborhood can get the best education possible and go to college.
Why not? Why wouldn't they get paid more? Why would it cut into their profit margins to have to pay your teachers more at the expense of a slower education program?
Are suggesting that the money to pay for the teachers and faculty at those schools be taken from money that would normally be spent on things like textbooks, student computer labs, desks, intervention programs, testing services etc? If that were the case the students would be getting even worse education when what they need is more. I doubt the govt. vouchers would pay for anyone to go to a school that isn't able to teach the standards.
If you wish to enhance security then obviously it has to come from somewhere. Different businesses could study and try different models. The one that is most successful in the customers eyes is the one that profits and grows. Parents would get to choose from different models which one they think is best for the kid. This would be opposed to the current system in which parents have no options. This is the way of the private market.
