If that's what you'd like then I'm all for it, but a few final remarks (and Parakiss already said a lot of things that pretty much mirrored what I was thinking, so I'll try to stick areas she didn't already sum up excellently).Sailorasteroid wrote:So, can we agree to disagree?
Parakiss already pointed out that parents don't always have a choice where to live, but I don't see what you're point about a nationwide lowering of standards has to do with this, because once again I'm all in favor of highering standards for schools all around the country. I believe it's better to have a guarantee that everybody will be able to get into a school that has to meet certain standards, as opposed to allowing which schools are built where to be deciding by corporations which are looking for a profit who are not required to meet any standards as long as they are making enough money to operate.Then there's an incentive for parents not to settle there. Even so, it's going to be a highly irregular situation, and I think it's better to have a few blighted areas than a nationwide lowering of standards.
So what if the choice is between sending your kid to school, or food and heat and medicine? Of course those who can pay the most will get the best, that's the way it will always works in a capitalist nation, but no one should have to choose between paying for their child's education or something that's essential for living.Well, people who can't pay for the good schools will have to pay for lesser schools, but if someone is so poor that he can't afford even the worst schools, then he has problems far beyond the education of his children. Money shouldn't count for everything in education, but neither should it be entirely divorced from the concept; if I'm willing and able to pay more, I deserve to recieve more.
All schools might not be equipped to deal children with special needs, and those that are the best equipped might charge more or be too far away. Some schools might also consider students who have a criminal past to be too much of a liability, even if they're reformed. And if students are currently involved in criminal behavior and you take away their education, that pretty much screws up their chances of ever going straight.Special-needs students are still sources of revenue, and private schools are just as likely to be built and sold on the premise that they can help special-needs students. The same thing with students who have reformed from criminal behavior. Children who actively engage in criminal behavior don't deserve good schools.
In the end, my position is that there's no proof that privatizing the school system will make it any better, and there's at least as much of a chance that it will just make things worse. Even if corporations would set up good schools in most places that most students can get into and wouldn't cost the parents too much money and aren't too far away, there's still too many potential kids who could not get into one, and that's unacceptable to me. Regardless of how bad the act that bears this name is, the concept of leaving no child behind is one that as a society we need to actively pursue. If you disagree with this, then I guess we're probably never going to agree, and agreeing to disagree is probably the best option. It was a good discussion though, thank you for it.