Schools are absolutely necessary. All teachers, programs, facilities, etc are not. We spend more on education with lower results than just about anywhere in the world. Clearly our goal seems to be happy teachers and teacher unions instead of well educated children. Dont get me wrong, I want to see GOOD teachers very well compensated. Unfortunately unions seldom allow properly rewarding good teachers and removing poor teachers. They only have a secondary interest in the children.
Is it incorrect to assume that if a school is poor that it will be the only one impacted by a severe reduction in student population due to a voucher system? Is it further incorrect to assume that if a school has a severe reduction in student population, that it will necessarily remove excess teachers and unnecessary programs. Is it incorrect to assume that (if unions would actually allow it) the reduced teachers / programs would be the worst performing teachers / programs, leaving the best teachers and productive programs for the remaining students. Is it then correct to assume that the best teachers should produce better results and the school should improve and students should return. If no improvement results, Is it incorrect to assume the school will eventually go away due to low participation and funding? Ultimately we then have a crappy school that cant fix its problems going away. I assume that is a good thing in the long run.