The federal regulation and standardization of education must be dismantled. High tuition are not not necessary and are not reliable representation of
good education. A high school graduate whose family lives from paycheck to paycheck should not have to place themselves at the risk of debt to afford
a good collegiate education, or any good education for that matter, and there should be no sacrifice of that higher education because of the fear of
debt. There should be a way for excellent education to be made available to all people from all incomes. Free public schools require standardization
of education which prohibits the growth of the students according to the what the government has laid down as required, and it also requires a central
regulatory oversight committees, as public schools are required to meet a quota for the government, and this does not boast well in terms of the
integrity of the education, as students just become numbers required to obtain. On the other hand, a private school can adapt their educational
standards to the amount of revenue they make directly from tuition, because their educational principles and standards are based off of their own
philosophy and their own system. Therefore I think that privatization of schools offer not only competition between schools beyond football games, but
also better prospects for the student and higher standards of education. This is my basic model of the education system:
From Preschool to twelfth grade, and possibly college, students will have to pay a percentage of the total family income based off of set percentage
for defined income brackets, basically an education tax. An example is anyone making less than 45k is taxed 3%. that means they pay 1350$ per year for
education. But a family that makes 90k is taxed 6%. That means they pay 5400$ per year, and this is the same throughout the 14 years of primary and
secondary education. But the money from this tax does not go to the government. This is the tuition fee for the school itself. This is the revenue for
the school. THe only role that a government would have in this set up, is that it pass federal legislation that this be the norm for education fees.
Rather than being charged a flat 10k to attend a nice private high school, your tuition is based off of what you and your family are earning. So if
your family is making 60,000 $ per year, and say federal stature required that for this income bracket of total income you pay 5% of your income per
year, that means your fees per year would come to 3000$. Now i know what you are thinking, that is a crapload of money being lost. How would the
school fund its own operation, its own foundations, its own insittutions, its own research, etc. That is the responsibility of our tax dollars to the
federal or state govt. But I will get into that later.
So how is this any better than what we have? How is taxing us for education any good at all? Why should a person making 100k per year have to pay, if
there was a 6% tax for that income bracket, 6000 dollars for their three year old to go to preschool, when someone making 10k pays 600$? Well to be
honest, what is being asked here is a change of values. One has to see the importance of their childs education as well as their neighbor's child's
education, and the importance of the excellence of the education, the quality of the teachers, and then you can understand why you pay so much.
So for the moment, believe that your values have changed. Now the free market aspect of the education system takes place.
Just like any competing businesses, the schools will also be competing against each other for their share of consumers. How do schools compete? It is
based solely off of the quality of the education they provide. If the schools are churning out a high rate of bright respectable and successful
children, that is going to attract the attention of parents who are looking for a good school for their children, and since all education will be made
affordable, no matter how prestigious the school may be, the child will be able to go, which is good for the student, the parent, and the school. The
better the education, the more people will want to send their child there, and the more children that go, the more money they make, and this allows
the school to expand and progress as an institution and offer even better education by offering higher salaries to even more qualified teachers so
that those teachers can churn out better students and the cycle just continues. offer better education, acquire more students, receive more money,
higher better teachers, offer better education, acquire more students, receive more money. The entire system revolves around how good the education is
being offered, just like a University will cost more because of its highly regarded professors and curriculum and courses offered, except, anyone will
be able to attend so long as they are intellectually capable of passing each year by taking certain exams and proficiency tests and all that, no
different from how it is now.
The only difference is that you now have to earn your education. You can't just buy it, you can't sleep through it, and you can't borrow it. And there
is nothing there to stop you from getting the best education you can except yourself, because the value of education remains the same everywhere, and
only the quality can vary. But you will know which institution provides the best education based on the amount of the students that attend, because
the school that has the highest percentage of first rate students will be the most desired. Its not a matter of social class, where the rich can
afford these amazing private schools in the foothills of Aspen and where the 1st grade teachers are Nobel laureates, but the poor are stuck at
worthless public schools that are falling apart due to the lack of funding. Both can share the same school and the same great education and both are
allowed the same opportunities. It all just depends on the intellect of the student, and if they can take advantage of their opportunity.
The idea is such an elementary program. The better the education means the more students which results in the more revenue which is used for the
better the education. Its simple economics. Every school will survive, because they will take in only enough revenue to support their institution
always, unless people stop going there. It just depends on how valuable their institution is to begin with, and how valuable it can become. If the
education sucks, if there is another school on the other side of the city with much better education, then everyone will go there, and that bad school
will close down.
And the idea is that the school is concerned primarily with quality education. The government is concerned with the progress of the country
scientifically. So just like the government offers grants to students now, well instead they will offer grants to schools, like they do currently
even, but because education is now affordable to everyone, no one requires financial aid from the government, so the government can use that money
that would have been in the hundreds of millions, possibly billions, and gift that directly to the betterment of the schools that deserve it. Now
these grants are like a prize, and they go to the best of the best of the educational institutions. These grants are part of what the schools compete
for, because these grants are the like the huge bonus at the end of the year. Like CEO's get million dollar bonuses, so will the schools, based off
the amount of successful and highly rated graduates per year. These grants are to be used for institutional development only, such as for funding
research and innovation. Salary raises for the staff of the schools rises alongside the amount the school makes directly from tuition. so then, when a
school gets more grants, that signifies it has better education, which attracts even more students, which is an incentive for teachers to work harder
at their job, because they get better facilities and raises.
This rating of students would be determined by specified examinations and it would be based on something similar to the GPA. These exams would have be
based off of a core curriculum that all schools are required to teach, that consists of Mathematics, Sciences, English/Literatures, Civics, History
etc...all in all the same subjects you take in high school that is necessary for a citizen of that country to learn in order to be a success in the
world. There will always be a core curriculum, but any courses or subjects that go beyond that, or even how the core curriculum is taught, is based
off of, of course, the quality of the teachers and what the school can afford and the philosophy of the school, and what the school can afford is
directly synchronous to the quality of the teachers, and what the school offers is part of the school's uniqueness, and is part of the incentive to
Teacher salaries are set upon hiring as agreed upon between both parties, and the rate of increase in salary or decrease in salary is based on
negotiations between the teacher and the school, and so if the teacher is ever unhappy with their pay or are getting better offers from other schools,
they can leave once their present school can find a replacement. Teachers will have their own stats and ratings so that schools can keep track of the
higher quality teachers and they can compete over that teacher. This way, a teacher always has motivation to work harder.
This system is one based off a triangle of success. If the students succeed, the school succeeds, and the teachers succeed, and it goes on. Unlike a
public school, there is no quota that needs to be achieved because they are gaining their funds directly from tuition, and normal operation is
provided by government distribution of taxes, such as for maintaining the utilities and upkeep of the structure and premises. Better education is the
only thing they strive for, because if they can accomplish that, the institution will be rewarded and they can continue to innovate and expand and
grow. Of course the brackets and percentages have to be settled to be more efficient and reasonable. but most of all peoples values need to change.
Parents need to see the importance of education for everyone, and the quality of that education, and that it should be available to everyone, and that
we all have our own duty to pay.
The best of the best should be available to everyone when it comes to education. This system actually inhibits the growth of the teaching profession,
it makes the occupation of a teacher so much more valuable, so much more exciting, because you are compensated for your work accordingly to the
quality of your work. everyone would want to be a teacher. you could make millions simply by being educated in the subject you love most and being
able to teach it to someone else. just think, a land of rich scholars. it remind me of the argument that teachers should have the highest salaries.
well i say, sure, if they can earn it. this system is all about that, earning and giving.
edit on 11-12-2010 by asperetty because: (no reason given)