It's interesting that I posted two ideas at the same time.
[1] Vouchers are the logical freemarket solution to every education problem we have.
[2] {This is response to someone else's post} -- The oil companies are NOT an example of the free market at work.
What's interesting is that about 2 dozen people have responded to the 2nd thought, and Not One to the First.
What conclusions ought I derive from this?
[1] Vouchers are the logical freemarket solution to every education problem we have.
I'll respond to it.
As I have already stated I am proud of how our school prepares our students to further their education.
The bottom line ,however, is what is best for the child. If a school is constantly failing to meet even minimal standards, there is an obligation to allow the children the opportunity to get a decent education. I am all for vouchers. Parents nor children should have to wait for a school to get their act together.
What conclusions ought I derive from this?
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
They are envious Marxists.
I think vouchers are a good idea. They would help bring down the cost of education. But I am not surprised that more people responded to your second idea, "The oil companies are not an example of the free market at work." People like to criticize the large salaries of CEO's and business executives. After all, creating class envy is easier than coming up with a cogent defense of the argument that teachers are underpaid.