[freeopinion]

If you are looking for reform, consider rethinking how much "education" the public should fund. Should we keep paying to have every student sit through Algebra and Geometry if less than 15% of them can pass the proficiency test afterward? Can we require people to pass proficiency tests before we fund their education past the 6th grade? 8th grade? Can we require a student to be able to read at a 3rd grade level before we enroll them in dual enrollment English Literature?

I understand the arguments for an educated population being a public benefit worth paying for. But we are spending enormous funds to produce an uneducated population. Some states now offer two high school diplomas. The traditional diploma doesn't mean anything anymore so now they have a "Career and College Ready Diploma" that is supposed to mean something. Why do we pay to fund a diploma that is meaningless?

What if we fund unlimited tries at K-6, and we fund 7-9 then 10-12 for people who earn the privilege with good marks? Then we can talk about funding 13-16 for people who keep earning the privilege. People who don't earn the privilege to advance can retake classes. Or they can move on with life as an uneducated person. We just skip the pretense of secondary education for them. Private schools can take up the challenge if they want to take a swing at people who haven't earned public funding.

That all seems radical and harsh. I just put it out there to spur your thoughts on reform.

[maerF0x0]

> Public should fund ... Algebra and Geometry

Yes.

But, the point of my post is that funding should not go to the underperforming public school systems and their unions. Instead parents should be free to purchase the education that delivers the most value for their dollar in a freemarket. But, because I do believe we should educate the kids of poor / low income parents, IMO we should still have public funding (a form of redistribution). Voucher systems is one such way this can be enacted.

> Can we require people to pass proficiency tests before we fund their education past the 6th grade? 8th grade...

IMO Kids should not be defunded for the failings of the adults around them. I do not believe it's basically ever a child's fault up to ~18-21 they are simply a product of the choices of the adults around them. Normal psychology says once someone is an adult then they may not be at fault, but they are responsible to handle and take care of whatever their childhood may have unfairly burdened them with...

[freeopinion]

I don't have a problem with vouchers. I mostly agree with you about not penalizing a child for the failures of the adults.

But whether the failure be the child's or the adults', a child who hasn't learned multiplication and division should not be thrown into an Algebra class. That is just more failure on the part of the adults. The child should first be given another chance to learn multiplication and division.

None of my post was aimed at defunding the student. I just think that any money spent buying third-grade reading level books for somebody who doesn't know the alphabet should not be wasted in that way. Instead, the money should be spent teaching (and re-teaching) the alphabet. The same goes for Algebra, etc. I'm all for teaching as many people as possible Algebra and Geometry and Physics and Chemistry... after they have gained the foundation they need to learn those subjects. This may require more funding, not less.