[rileymat2]

This is not entirely true, with a two party system and competing policy positions of relative importance coupled with party line voting, there are many issues where a majority of the majority, which only amounts to about 30% of the total population, can block changes that are popular with the 70%.

This leaves the 70% in a position where it takes extreme effort to move forward. Starting a new private school system is a big effort for a position that says teachers should get 50k instead of 35k.

[roenxi]

As far as I can tell you've identified that you have limited ability to get what you want in the public system because of an intransigent minority. The obvious response is to move into a parallel system where the minority doesn't have to participate. That is fast, fair and and pretty easy to execute all things considered - if people are serious about wanting to pay teachers more, which I don't believe they are.

> Starting a new private school system is a big effort for a position that says teachers should get 50k instead of 35k.

It really isn't. Or more accurately, if it is then that is the problem rather than the salary being paid. Teaching kids to the standards of a system that is currently paying its teachers ~$35k is pretty straightforward when you get down to it; and improving on it would not be hard. The economy is made up of people continuously taking positions on these sorts of issues.

I spent decade(s) being educated, I've got a respectable number of letters I can put after my name and all the way through the capital costs outside a couple of science labs and the actual school building were negligible. And a big chunk of the important material is available online for free. Education in real terms is a really easy field to enter and compete in. But I think if anyone tried they'd just discover that people don't actually want to pay teachers money. They want someone else to pay teachers money. Because without that little rider there is only a rather small problem here to solve.