Allow me to open the door so that the elephant may walk into the room. The swedish try something new to get kids educated, but problems quickly develop : 1) Pe

Allow me to open the door so that the elephant may walk into the room. The swedish try something new to get kids educated, but problems quickly develop : 1) People don't like shareholders taking money from the public sector. 2) People don't like teachers being underpaid. So, let's level up this argument. What if teachers were making the profits ? Would that still be repugnant to you ? How about a system where anyone (and literally I mean anyone, not just someone with a Master's in education) can start a school out of their living room. Let's say a retired entrepreneur that used to run a factory in your town. 6 families agree to pay with a school voucher so this retiree will teach the kids full time, at her house. Public schools will lose the students, as will the certified teachers. The profit will instead flow to the retiree. She's making ~72K /yr and is happy because that is substantially more than the median teacher salary. Is this scenario still "Shameful" ? What if more teachers did it, they banded together and formed a collective ? Once the profit gets larger.. does it then become repugnant ? Lets take another step further. Lets say the collective teachers choose to retire. They worked hard, they taught many students, but now they are now done. They get to keep the stock in the collective they founded. We now have stockholders. What is then, the effective difference between the stockholders in sweden and the stockholders of my example ?