Defunding all public schools and encourgaging private school growth would better U.S. education.

Thanks for joining the debate. I apologize for not making clear the rounds and rules. I'm still new to this site so I'm learning along the way. I suppose I'll get this party started then. Well we've all heard the vast and numerous complaints regarding our current education system. The class sizes are to crowded, there is not enough funding, the teachers aren't paid enough, the curriculum is outdated, the list goes on and on and on. I once learned the formulate for x-y=z where z is the square route of 2. But what it meant, and what I'll ever use it for is completely irrelevant. Parents today have only three choices, send your child to school you don't like but are "zoned" to go to, move so that your child can attend a school that isn't much better than the one you were previously forced to send them to, or pay out of pocket even more money to send your child to a government regulated private school that teaches the same useless garbage that is already taught in a public school. Bottom line is that our current system is broken. And instead of creating a better program that would work for us, we keep throwing money at a consistently broken system in the hopes that it will soon work. It's like spending 100k trying to fix up an old beater from the 60's instead of investing 24k into a bran new car that would work just fine. I argue that there is a better solution. I argue that removing the current education system we currently have would be much better for the country as a whole, and our workforce as we progress. I'm sure there are arguments my opponent will bring to the table this round to counter my theory. But I would like voters to use an open mind when considering my suggestion to the many possibilities this would provide. The possibilities are endless, but to outline a few. .. Cost efficiency: Currently our taxes pay for the education system that is in place for our children. Because I have stated that I will be using reason and logic, I will not provide the exact number that is spent or when exactly that money goes, but I instead appeal to the common logic of it all. We currently pay for the department of education. We pay for the suits in D. C. , we pay for their staff, we pay for the "test trials" of the curriculum that is passed around from state to state, we pay for commissioners, assistant commissioners, deputies of education, principals, assistant principals, it's no wonder when the pyramid extends that high that there is no more money to squeeze out for qualified teachers. Private companies are experts at providing great services while eliminating waste. Government agencies are experts in the opposite. I believe it is a safe argument that we are currently not getting what we pay for or expect. But we currently don't have any other options. But allowing a free market to determine what quality we seek for our children, and competition to decide how much it should cost, would save money, and increase efficiency. Options: Currently when we go grocery shopping, we are not told what store we must buy our food from. Nor are we told what type of rice or noodles we must eat. The free market allows competition to determine what is best for the consumer. I argue that a free market education system will provide the best education at the lowest of prices. There will be great expensive schools (yale,harvard, ect). And there will be more affordable schools with each, you can expect to get what you pay for. And to say that every child deserves equal education, leads me to my next point. Quality: History has proven that not all children are equal or the same. Some children are visual learners. Some hands on. Some children are extremely intelligent, others unfortunately are not. Our current system is struggling to meet the needs of all mainly because it is trying to control it all. This is an impossible task for any one company, organization, or government to complete. A free market would allow the private industry to specialize to what a child most accurately gravitates to. Say your child excels in math and has shown an interest in banking/business. Your child would not be alone and the free market climate would provide specialty schools so a child could focus in the direction that's best for him/her. Or, perhaps a child is not so strong in that department but does enjoy the physical work of being outdoors and building on a trade. There once was a time when trade schools were everywhere. Apprenticeship programs available at all ages. Our current system fails to provide the available options necessary for growth. In a world where options could be limitless, our current government limits itself. The result is selling our youth short at to early an age. Those are only three pro's but again, the options are limitless. Perhaps more rounds would have been necessary for a fair argument on both sides, but I will leave this round with this. I look forward to my opponents critiques of my assessment as well as any other cons she would see from my theory. ..