> Big players owning the schools also becomes a huge risk since parents can easily just go elsewhere.
You seem to keep assuming this, but it's just not true. Parents with means can go elsewhere, and even then to a limit. But all that does is leave the schools and kids that are left behind even worse off. And the big schools can keep buying up the other schools. There's only so many places within a range where parents can take their kids, not to mention there'd need to be a minimum amount of kids to even justify keeping one open.
> Those big players would have to be doing a very good job to keep everybody, compared with the current situation where most people seem to do it because they have no choice.
No they really don't. We see this all the time with other big companies. I fail to see how privatizing education makes it any different than every other private enterprise out there.
> Where in the world are you seeing a school bus route that goes 2 hours each way?
Rural United States. I had students literally have to be on the bus at 5:30 in order to get to school at 7.30. They also didn't get home until 5:30 or later at night, depending on weather.
> Ideally, the creation of schools a lot closer to those kids would become possible.
Population dynamics prevent it.
> And a transport hub is perfectly normal and even reasonable. It simplifies the entire pickup and drop off process. Who knows, maybe UPS can show us how it’s done?
Sure, if you're willing to have kids commute multiple hours a day, and have to switch buses (maybe several times?) and somehow expect that to not impact their success.