So that dead WalMart guy, I was reading, supported school vouchers for poor people to send their children to private schools, and advocated that the government do the same. Which is nice. Those Walton kids are generally regarded as evil, but this guy doesn't sound so bad. He wanted poor kids to be able to get a decent education, and he did the one thing that could ensure that any of them who wanted the same for themselves could do so: he enabled them to go to schools where actually educating students is the main focus.
I like the idea of private schools, for that reason. Sure, public schooling seems like a marvelously egalitarian idea, where everyone in America is supposed to be able to get a decent education to enable good citizenship, prosperity, et cetera. Except, public schools suck, in general. Granted, there are some good ones, but the majority, from what I understand, are mediocre or worse.
I went to mediocre schools the whole time I lived in Hawaii, and it just may be that I'm dumber than I might have been because of it. Lazier, probably--I mean, why would I ever try hard at anything when I never had to before? If the lowest common denominator was always the goal (inappropriate math metaphors! see what I mean?), then, feh. Ok, ok, it's not fair to blame my laziness entirely on crappy public schooling, but maybe, if I had been able to go to a decent private school that would, you know, kick me out if I didn't live up to my potential--or if I decided to be a trouble-making jerk (which I never did, personally, but which others did, wasting tremendous amounts of time and distracting teachers from, like, teaching).
I can see why people are uncomfortable with the idea of healthcare being a business, what with all that touchy-feely we want to help everyone stuff, but I don't understand discomfort with education being a business. Everyone wants to be healthy, but not everyone wants to be educated. We don't try to force people to be healthy, but we do try to force them to be educated. It doesn't make sense (the education part). It wastes resources, and I can't think of any benefits off-hand, except maybe improved hygiene?
It seems like people who want to go to good schools and get a good education, people who have natural aptitude, should be able to do so, and shouldn't be stuck alongside losers and slackers and idiots. Their parents are already paying for their education--and getting ripped off. If the state and the feds gave back that education money, then the parents who gave a crap (and those tend to be the ones with the highest achieving students) could ensure that they were getting what they paid for. Of course, there will always be cases where the parents don't give a crap but the child does--in which case, perhaps there could be a system whereby some third party can make a recommendation or something. I'm not necessarily saying that you should give the parents back all the money to do with what they will--but hey! vouchers, anyone? Maybe continue to tax people at the current rates (hell, they're used to it!), but maybe let the parents decide where they want it to go--that way they can't blow it on crack, or whatever, so have no incentive not to send the child to whatever school the child can get into.
Also, this will not necessarily lead to gross disparity in education between the rich and the poor--at least, no more so than there is today. Schools don't just get their money from tuition; in some cases, not even most of it. They also have, and want, donors. So if there's some really poor kid who's really smart or really hard-working or both, it's in their best interest (and they know it) to admit that kid--to instill in him a lifelong gratitude toward the institution. Then, when he becomes a success (because he's smart, hard-working, and has an excellent educaiton), he'll probably give back to the people who gave him his start in life. So while rich kids can buy their way in upfront, poor kids with potential can still buy their way in on credit.
Anyway. It would be nice.