Quote Originally Posted by RandBlade View Post
No, the private sector cares about what works. If there is healthy competition and you don't provide quality then the customer will go somewhere else that does and you will fail.

Privatisation without the risk of failure for the private organisation is not competition, it is not proper privatisation. The risk of doom hangs over every private organisation and removing that removes moral hazard.

The private sector in general works better than the public sector due to the rigors of competition. A private sector without competition is not a real market.
I've yet to see a something that reliably works for everyone when it comes to schooling. Because, let's face it: You do have to provide schooling for everyone and not merely a select few.

Also: The tools for measuring a school's proficiency are usually quite flawed and won't hold up to the usual standards in science. I mean, sciences like psychology have massive problems with quite a number of studies. And that's for scientific studies which usually try to normalize their measurements to exlude external factors.

And then you plonk a single teacher in there and "measure" his "skill" by doing tests and similar idiocies. And punish him for having a class which is simply substandard through no fault of his own. Sometimes it is that random.

That's where your idea of "competition" falls flat on its face, Rand. We simply don't have the tools to reliably measure teaching success at the needed granularity for something like that.

I mean, yes, there's the obvious stuff. The easy stuff. Granted. But you then get the asshats who insist that a difference of 0.1 in the average GPA of schools somehow is meaningful.