Originally Posted by JavaBlack

I bet you'd find a more accurate assessment of what works and what doesn't by comparing localities.
I live in Michigan. Go to Detroit schools... don't expect much.
But some of the schools in parts of rich Oakland County: great schools! All the kids go to college, many to Ivy League schools.
(I went to a mediocre school in the lame part of Oakland County... beats Detroit... but no equivalent to Troy or Birmingham- most of our grads went to tech schools, I went to a mediocre local university)

The problem with all this government v. nongovernment crap is that it overlooks how much of school depends on the environment of the school and the education/educational values/educational resources of the people who live there.

And when it comes down to it, our schools are not bad for what they teach to the best students in the areas with good schools. Those kids are doing great.
The problem is in areas that are poorer, more blue collar, and especially inner city.
They're lacking.
Privatization will not automatically solve that problem.

But on the other hand, neither will more money (at least not that alone).

Voucher programs are found to work best when they are targeted specifically at the populations in need... Oh, I'm sure that'll go over well.

What seems to work better is charter schools. Sort of a compromise. They add competition without sending the system out into chaos. That's what is necessary to improve things for the kids who are behind.
The kids who are ahead are doing fine and will continue to do so.