> With the present system there is no correlation or synchronisation between funding, teaching, outcome and requirement of the society.
Yes, there is. Local school boards and democratic control are one. The voter decide on a school administration system which fits their requirements.
The charter school movement (which has been a net failure, IMO) is another. Let the parents decide which schools are most effective, and funding follows the parents' wishes.
I don't see how this proposed system handles the "requirement of the society". If I have no children, I still want some say on how people are educated. These are the people who will be my co-citizens. But nothing in this proposal gives them any power.
> Raising taxes will not help for this reason.
Since there is currently a coupling, raising taxes may help.
Again, see any number of countries where university and career training are included as part of taxes. Explain how that happens if there is no coupling.
> diminishes the need for trust funds
I see I used a term with multiple interpretations. I mean people whose parents are rich and set up a trust fund so the kids can live off that wealth for their entire lives without working.
What's the incentive to educate children who don't need to work to make a living?
> it does have impact due to loss of income to the school.
Please quantify. In the current system there's an immediate loss of income for school reimbursement based on headcount. This last for at most a few years - new students will come in. There is also no loss of income due to tax.
In your system, there is a long-term impact, and it's localized to those teachers and schools involved. The burden, by construction, cannot be shared.
> How can one say with certainty
LOL! Your entire proposal is based on uncertain and overall statistical effects, and you want me to be certain?
There's a huge amount of evidence that socioeconomic status "is a consistent and reliable predictor of a vast array of outcomes across the life span, including physical and psychological health. Thus, SES is relevant to all realms of behavioral and social science, including research, practice, education, and advocacy." (quoting https://www.apa.org/pi/ses/resources/publications/factsheet-... ).
You cannot simply wave it away by saying there are always exceptions!
And teachers aren't dumb. If a significant amount of their income derives from the future income of their students, then do you think they are going to prefer working at a school where the parents are financially well-off, or where the parents are poor?
> these entities can then divert their funds to special needs teachers .. there won't be a need to re-balance anything ... does not have to reduce anything
I told you, that's not how the system works - I gave examples!
Why wouldn't they simply cut funding? What's the pressure for them to divert to special needs teachers, or to keep the existing funding going so that your proposal acts only a supplement?
If the school's bake sale raises $50,000 every year to supplement the school's funding, then there's less pressure on the school board to fund the extra $50,000 ... and they won't. Raise more money from bake sales, and the school board has even less pressure to fund the school.
If you proposal provides a revenue source, then the school board is going to lower the tax rate and lower the normal school funding. Because voters are going to point out that the teachers have another revenue source, so why are they paying such high taxes?