Federal standardization of K-12 education system is more beneficial than privatization/voucher

Let us accept Pro's contention that sending funds to under funded systems would raise their performance. The corollary must therefore also be true that taking funds away from "over funded" systems must lower their performance (and while Pro stated his opinion that the wealthy could afford a loss in funds with minimal loss in education, he offered no data - just opinion) . Since Pro is not calling for an increase in funding but rather for redistribution of current funds, the following must by necessity occur: ***** if all schools are performing across the board represented by grades F D C B A, and we redistribute funds from A and give those funds to F the result would be (according to Pro) that the systems would end thus ..... D D C B B ( because the funds raised F to D, but at the same time lowered A to B). ********* Now allow the process to continue so funds from B and B go then to D and D. The result would be both D and D raise to C and C, while B and B fall to C and C. In the end the 5 systems are C C C C C. Granted this may not occur right away, but in time this would be the necessary outcome - everyone with average funding performs at an average level. ********** This is the race toward mediocrity as presaged by Con. It could also be taken as a race to the bottom! Note too that Pro has used PISA to show under performance in US schools. But if we take the example above we see that US PISA scores would go unchanged, as the bottom may come up only as the top comes down. The PISA scores would be unchanged. The redistribution of educational funds becomes than a ZERO SUM GAME, Pro's argument that " nations such as Finland, South Korea, Japan, Hong Kong, Taiwan, and Singapore, which are all ahead of the US in terms of K-12 educational outcomes......all have adopted a centralized funding system" ignores a basic difference between those countries and the US. Those countries have much more homogeneous demographics than does the US. A "one size fits all" program would be much more successful under those populations where the make up is much less diverse than it is in the US. Con still puts forth the idea that what is needed is a purpose, a goal, a focus for education. Sputnik led to the race toward the Moon, which put renewed interest in science and math.. As the space race slowed, the US picked up a vision for environmental progress with the resultant need for engineers and chemists. What is needed now is a new vision that produces a need in the students to move up and learn. Perhaps the vision will be an emphasis on energy or food production. This will raise the educational outcome one student at a time, each finding their own way, free from the bureaucratic burdens of yet another social program. Programs for redistribution, be it wealth or education will always produce mediocrity. "You cannot help the poor by destroying the rich." " Abraham Lincoln [1] Conclusion: In this debate between tttcomrader and I, one needs to consider the effect that either plan would have on the future of this country. If you agree that absolute educational performance is more important relativistic fairness or relativistic equity, and that schools should be a locally controlled place of learning and not a place of social engineering experiments, I urge you to vote for Con. [1] http://investmentwatchblog.com... ]