After we get rid of these institutions, I think it is a good decision to give parents the decision regarding the education of their children.
I have met parents who were capable of making this decision appropriately; I have met parents who are not. The reasons they are incapable are widely variant - they do not speak English or speak it poorly; they do not have the time/expertise to choose a school that is truly appropriate for their child; they do not have the education themselves necessary to make an informed choice; they do not have access to transportation to get their child to the appropriate school even if they
can choose it correctly; they are academically unable (for the reasons given above) to support their child appropriately even if the child is in the appropriate school; they do not have a clear understanding of their child's actual abilities and needs (too high or too low); etc., ad nauseum, ad infinitum.
Should parents have their children's best interests in mind (in education and in other things)? Of course they should - but that doesn't mean that all parents are competent to make these decisions. Would you make medical decisions independent of a medical professional if you have the choice to confer with one? And yet, I have met innumerable parents who make academic choices for their students, based on the parents' desires and expectations much more than the child's needs and abilities (both too high and too low, and in opposition to the child's strengths and interests), and argue vehemently when teachers attempt to tell them why the choice they made is not in the child's best interests.
Other countries use a models where the child gets a certain stipend from the state (the stipend varies from complete coverage of tuition costs to a portion). I would argue that a complete stipend is necessary.
I would argue against it, for the reasons given above. In addition, while I do think that schools are too big, centralization of services allows for a greater range of options for students, and school choice (which is available
without vouchers or other methods of removing funding from schools in most states) allows students and their families to choose from options that would be unavailable in smaller settings - not that the schools need to be so large, but that the variety needs to be available within a certain radius.
Regardless, what this does is that it creates options for parents. No longer do you giant megaschools that force children through a generalized program aimed at the 50th percentile.
I'm not disputing this. The biggest push for a generalized program is not coming from the schools; rather, it is coming from the federal government, in the form of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, more commonly known as the No Child Left Behind law, which assumes that legislating student achievement (without funding to pay for the testing, and the threat of losing other funding if the testing is not done) is enough to make it so, and that the threat of losing yet more funds for failure is sufficient motivation. The law is so universally decried - not for the accountability, which so many assume teachers which to avoid - but because basing accountability on what students do on one high-stakes test flies in the face of common sense; there are too many factors out of the school's control that affect how a student will perform on a given task on a given day - smaller, standards-based checks performed at regular intervals would be a much better method of making teachers accountable for the students they have
at that time than a massive test, the results of which are not known until the students have moved to the next grade.
Now you get programs based on the interests of the children. Programs that are specifically tailored to meet their education needs. You have children with special needs? Now worries, now a school would exist that would specifically revolve around providing for those needs. No more slipping through the cracks of a giant beauracracy.
It's a nice thought - and it was tried, when special education first became widespread. Targeted instruction is a great tool in it's place, but segregating students by ability and disability proved to be detrimental; students had only those of their own abilities to compare themselves to, and for those who were not in the highest group (and some who were) the lack of others to compare themselves to and strive to match - not to mention the lack of diversity in ability and viewpoint which triggers independent thought and exploration - had a significantly negative effect on students which more than outweighed any (demonstrably slight) benefit gained by the segregated classrooms. For those without disabilities, it also isolated them from their disabled, or differently abled, peers, leaving them less aware of their actual abilities, and reducing the development of acceptance and understanding that I see in students today - despite all the news stories to the contrary about bullying and other negative interactions, I see many students at my middle schools learning compassion from their differently abled peers, which will serve them well in the future.
You got kids who are college bound? Wonderful! Now they can attend the best college prep schools and not be surrounded by an ocean of uncommitted morons.
Heck, there wouldn't even be many of those anymore because they could truly find a place that stimulated their minds.
One of the biggest concerns I have with the current climate of education is that, in the push for high standards, the programs that are tailored for students for whom college is just not the right choice - specifically, trade school students, those who want to become anything from mechanics to computer techs to beauticians, etc. - those programs are being squeezed out of existence by the insistence that
all students take the courses that used to be only in the college prep track. Those classes - both the college prep classes and the tech classes - should be available to all students, based on ability and interest - and providing that type of programming would improve the level of interest and investment in the students who are in them. Forcing a student who wants to be a mechanic and doesn't like (or isn't good at) advanced math to take differential calculus is guaranteed to make him or her uninterested, which leads to behavior problems; likewise, so is forcing a student who wants to be a doctor or lawyer to take classes in musical theory, unless they are actually interested in it.
Choice is the key, and our current federal laws are driving that choice out of the schools.
Homeschoolers? Unschoolers? Now parents would have the resources to make these options even better. Imagine a homeschool program taught by a dedicated parent like my wife and I (both college graduates with advanced degrees, who are experienced travellers, and very knowledgable in many other subjects). Give me $15,000 per child and when I'm teaching them about the history of China, we are going to GO TO CHINA! Or if I'm teaching them geology, I'm going to get in the car and TEACH THEM GEOLOGY!
Some parents make great educators for their own children; others find that they are lacking in either expertise or objectivity when it comes to teaching their own children. Then, too, there is the issue of
time - for many parents, who are single parents, or whose families need the income of both parents, home schooling is impossible for logistical reasons. The oversight necessary to ensure that homeschoolers receive appropriate educations is massive, and massively expensive - and the appropriate use of funding is one of the key concerns.
It's all there. I don't know why we put up with it. All of these options really are possible. We just need to make the decision to step out of the "state controlled conciousness model" we have now.
Again, I agree that control of the schools should be at the local level; federal control is based in some interesting interpretations of federal law as relates to interstate commerce, in which education is defined as a commodity to be bartered across state lines, as well as anti-discrimination laws, which led to desegregation and special education laws - and thus the federal government became involved in something that should have been left, at its largest, to the states.
.
) mostly causes me to articulate in monosyllables. :bangahead: 
