Principals and teachers usually care very deeply for educating the next generation, and are equally as often stifled or limited in how they can achieve their go

Principals and teachers usually care very deeply for educating the next generation, and are equally as often stifled or limited in how they can achieve their goals by a political system in which they're demonized from the right (economic and political) and micromanaged from all sides (c.f. NCLB). To your specific points: 1) Budget concerns make this prohibitively expensive for the majority of school districts. School districts frequently devolve the expense of providing classroom items on to teachers, or parents. Without an increase in funding, this item is a non-starter. Unfortunately, thanks mainly to conservatives (whether they call themselves "Republicans" or "Democrats") in our government, providing extra funding is unlikely. 2) There are a wide variety of online schools (actual, "accredited" schools run by various public school districts or private companies contracting with state Departments of Education) already. Having some experience in this area (indirectly), I'm not convinced it's a good idea or approach for students who aren't already highly capable and motivated. 3) The start time problem may be solvable. However budget issues arise here, too. Starting later means shifting times for running lights and A/C, possibly during peak usage in some areas of the country, and that has to be accounted for. So all the budgetary problems that conservatives impose would apply for this as well. Throwing in school-provided nutritional breakfasts would just exacerbate the issue. 4) Testing in general is an inadequate, poor, and generally poorly implemented way to measure knowledge. The very bright will either be bored to tears (and receive poor marks) or "game" the test with good test taking skills. Everybody else will just have increased stress with little benefit. 5) Again, budget issues would make this a huge problem to implement. Thank conservatives running our government for that. 6) No comments; I'm neutral on this. 7) See: budget concerns. Gym/P.E., debate, home economics, shop, art, music, etc. are all under retrenchment because conservatives in our government refuse to provide the resources to make these things happen. 8) See my comments from (2); this is great in theory but simply put the majority of students are either not capable of or unwilling to utilize such freedom successfully. Charter schools are little better than vehicles for the enrichment of private individuals at the expense of the public treasury. They're thinly veiled means for a transfer of tax dollars to connected and wealthy individuals, and they're a non-starter, as far as I'm concerned. They don't belong in a serious discussion about reform of our education system. Private schools aren't a solution for the majority (the vast, overwhelming majority) of the public, who can't afford tuition. Even if they were, there is scant evidence that private schools provide better education than public schools when compounding factors (e.g. selecting for economic or other privileged status) are taken into account. It's easy to have high graduation and college/Ivy League acceptance rates when one selectively refuses to admit the most disadvantaged students.