[chjohasbrouck]

This was my only thought. When a system is that efficient at squandering resources, you can't fix it by throwing more resources at it.

I'm reminded of L.A. Unified and the iPad debacle:

http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-ln-ipad-curriculum-...

They bought over 120,000 iPads, they paid above retail, and nobody ever thought of implementing a policy assigning liability or establishing any procedure in the event of damages or theft. To iPads. That were given to the children of low-income parents. In low-income neighborhoods. In Los Angeles.

Another few hundred million dollars went of course to an overpriced and ineffective Pearson curriculum. Another few hundred million to "improve internet connectivity in schools."

All told they spent about $1.5 billion -- not nationwide on colleges, but in just 1 school district (LA Unified) -- and we really have nothing to show for it whatsoever. Apple made some money, Pearson made some money, some company that makes expensive routers probably made some money, and the citizens ... well, not so much happened for us.

[redahs]

School vouchers or, even better, tutor vouchers are the way to go.

If students actually had a choice in how education funding was allocated, they would spend it directly on higher teacher salaries to pay for the additional teacher labor hours necessary to receive individual one-on-one instruction.

They wouldn't spend it on proprietary learning materials, large classrooms, large facilities, large administrative offices, and large campuses.

Get rid of the "smart classrooms" and allow students to pay directly for instruction with a student\teacher ratio of 1.

[dalke]

I have no children, but I want to have an educated population.

When you take my tax dollars and give them to parents as vouchers, you reduce or eliminate my democratic right to influence how we educate the next generation.

Why should only the children and parents have a say in that process?

I'm not saying an elected school board provides perfect oversight, as the iPad debacle shows, but at least it has more public oversight than washing our hands of the problem and delegating all responsibility and economic power to the parents.

Also, there are any number of college students who use their money to go to schools with "proprietary learning materials, large classrooms, large facilities, large administrative offices, and large campuses", so no reason to believe that things will be different for primary and secondary schools.

And there is plenty of evidence to believe that parents are attracted by schools which advertise "smart classrooms", and tout (incorrectlu, IMO) how they use computers to teach more effectively than a teacher does.