4 ms·

I was more or less agreeing with you. However, you seem to gloss over the fact that not all people in this country have a car and their children may be too you

I was more or less agreeing with you. However, you seem to gloss over the fact that not all people in this country have a car and their children may be too young for the bus system. Etc. It isn't "better" if people are too poor to take advantage of the option. So there are additional costs that get frequently overlooked beyond just the cost of school/tuition. The amount of money has to be enough that even the poorest student has 2-3 options or it becomes pointless.

joeclark77 12y ago
I don't see why, from an economics perspective. Sure, the person who lives real close to one school and very distant from the other schools may not have other options so good that they overcome the cost difference of travel, however, the people who live halfway between the two schools will still have that choice. This still ensures that there is competitive pressure on the schools. The thing about competition is that it tends to improves the quality/cost ratio of all offerings, even those that don't "win" the competition.
- opendais 12y ago
  In capitalism, those that don't "win" the competition go bankrupt and die. I can easily see scenarios [say inner city LA county] where the only options are "bad schools" and siphoning funds away from them while leaving the poorest that are stuck in Compton or the like, isn't going to work. It has to provide for the poorest to get an education as good as those in richer areas.
  - joeclark77 12y ago
    So... when will they be taking Pepsi off the shelf? Closing down all the Burger Kings? LA has dozens if not hundreds of schools. If there are two lousy schools near Compton and parents can choose which ones get the funds earmarked for their child, even those lousy schools will get better fast. They don't have to become the best schools in the country for the parents and children to experience a benefit.

joeclark77 12y ago

I don't see why, from an economics perspective. Sure, the person who lives real close to one school and very distant from the other schools may not have other options so good that they overcome the cost difference of travel, however, the people who live halfway between the two schools will still have that choice. This still ensures that there is competitive pressure on the schools. The thing about competition is that it tends to improves the quality/cost ratio of all offerings, even those that don't "win" the competition.

opendais 12y ago
In capitalism, those that don't "win" the competition go bankrupt and die. I can easily see scenarios [say inner city LA county] where the only options are "bad schools" and siphoning funds away from them while leaving the poorest that are stuck in Compton or the like, isn't going to work. It has to provide for the poorest to get an education as good as those in richer areas.
- joeclark77 12y ago
  So... when will they be taking Pepsi off the shelf? Closing down all the Burger Kings? LA has dozens if not hundreds of schools. If there are two lousy schools near Compton and parents can choose which ones get the funds earmarked for their child, even those lousy schools will get better fast. They don't have to become the best schools in the country for the parents and children to experience a benefit.