Do you want Texas's school voucher program in DC or DMV?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’m not buying the tuition inflation argument. There are charter schools that make do with less money than private schools. My child is in one. The public district hates it and they always try to make their life harder.

When the government subsidizes something then demand and prices increase. Maybe not at your charter school since most people are wary of those setups, but private schools will certainly raise tuition.

Also sounds like fed funding to universities…

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Reasons why this is bad policy:
1. Mainly helps the wealthy who can already afford private schools.
2. Will just cause private schools to raise their fees. Meaning poor aren’t really helped by the subsidy.
3. Draws away money from public schools which have to meet a wide variety of needs.
4. Small school districts are against it since their schools are often the many center of community. Drawing away funds and students makes things harder for those communities.

1. Wealthy people are entitled to public services too, that’s why they are public and not low income programs.

2. The private schools are non profit so if they raise their prices the money is still spent on education, not a bad thing.

3. The money is meant for educating students not to fund public schools. It’s fine if the money follows the student.

4. In many of these communities churches are the center of the community, but we don’t fund them, do we?

1. Wealthy kids can and do attend public.

2. Bad assumption. Doesn’t help the poor people.

3. The money is meant for educating students via public schools.

The point of the voucher program is that parents (wealthy or poor), use public money to any educational institution ( private, charter or public).

You’re misunderstanding what vouchers are. You’re just saying what the state of current education is, which is public money goes to public schools. The vouchers are attempting to change this status quo.

There are already vouchers in DC. The only thing that’s changed is the price of private school. How is that changing the status quo? More public money for private school administrators, I guess. It’s hard for me to get excited about that.

Maybe you could get excited by higher graduation rates for voucher participants. In the end that’s what matters, not how much funding public schools burn through.

Perhaps the voucher program could target those student populations that usually have lower graduation rates like poor kids and kids with special needs and/or learning differences.

Why, we don’t care if affluent and middle class kids do their best? There aren’t a lot of programs targeting low income students that actually work.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’m not buying the tuition inflation argument. There are charter schools that make do with less money than private schools. My child is in one. The public district hates it and they always try to make their life harder.

It's not an argument, there's data:

https://carolinaforward.org/blog/vouchers-fuel-private-school-tuition-hikes/ - North Carolina

https://www.kcrg.com/2024/05/17/princeton-study-private-school-tuitions-rise-after-state-voucher-rollout/ - Iowa

https://www.oklahoman.com/story/news/2024/08/13/oklahoma-private-school-tax-credit-tuition-increase-some-schools/74781756007/ - Oklahoma

I like how you give three sources that link to the same study that is not peer reviewed, and is basically sponsored by a think tank, which mentions in the fine print the papers are opinions and perspectives. Unfortunately educational departments are overtly politicized.

The increase in tuition is somewhat modest, and it’s expected given the price elasticity, ie more students for a limited capacity. It also matters what the tuition increase is used for, there’s not a lot of evidence that it goes all into administrator salaries. Paying effective teachers more is a good thing.

You didn't click on the links, those are three different studies by three different entities, one of them by Princeton.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Reasons why this is bad policy:
1. Mainly helps the wealthy who can already afford private schools.
2. Will just cause private schools to raise their fees. Meaning poor aren’t really helped by the subsidy.
3. Draws away money from public schools which have to meet a wide variety of needs.
4. Small school districts are against it since their schools are often the many center of community. Drawing away funds and students makes things harder for those communities.

1. Wealthy people are entitled to public services too, that’s why they are public and not low income programs.

2. The private schools are non profit so if they raise their prices the money is still spent on education, not a bad thing.

3. The money is meant for educating students not to fund public schools. It’s fine if the money follows the student.

4. In many of these communities churches are the center of the community, but we don’t fund them, do we?

1. Wealthy kids can and do attend public.

2. Bad assumption. Doesn’t help the poor people.

3. The money is meant for educating students via public schools.

The point of the voucher program is that parents (wealthy or poor), use public money to any educational institution ( private, charter or public).

You’re misunderstanding what vouchers are. You’re just saying what the state of current education is, which is public money goes to public schools. The vouchers are attempting to change this status quo.

There are already vouchers in DC. The only thing that’s changed is the price of private school. How is that changing the status quo? More public money for private school administrators, I guess. It’s hard for me to get excited about that.

Maybe you could get excited by higher graduation rates for voucher participants. In the end that’s what matters, not how much funding public schools burn through.

Perhaps the voucher program could target those student populations that usually have lower graduation rates like poor kids and kids with special needs and/or learning differences.

Why, we don’t care if affluent and middle class kids do their best? There aren’t a lot of programs targeting low income students that actually work.

And here I thought you were interested in higher graduation rates. Do you think affluent kids need help graduating?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’m not buying the tuition inflation argument. There are charter schools that make do with less money than private schools. My child is in one. The public district hates it and they always try to make their life harder.

It's not an argument, there's data:

https://carolinaforward.org/blog/vouchers-fuel-private-school-tuition-hikes/ - North Carolina

https://www.kcrg.com/2024/05/17/princeton-study-private-school-tuitions-rise-after-state-voucher-rollout/ - Iowa

https://www.oklahoman.com/story/news/2024/08/13/oklahoma-private-school-tax-credit-tuition-increase-some-schools/74781756007/ - Oklahoma

I like how you give three sources that link to the same study that is not peer reviewed, and is basically sponsored by a think tank, which mentions in the fine print the papers are opinions and perspectives. Unfortunately educational departments are overtly politicized.

The increase in tuition is somewhat modest, and it’s expected given the price elasticity, ie more students for a limited capacity. It also matters what the tuition increase is used for, there’s not a lot of evidence that it goes all into administrator salaries. Paying effective teachers more is a good thing.

You didn't click on the links, those are three different studies by three different entities, one of them by Princeton.

They all reference the Princeton study that is not peer reviewed and I might add quite bold with their conclusions. The rest is just anecdotal evidence, some named school raised their tuition.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Reasons why this is bad policy:
1. Mainly helps the wealthy who can already afford private schools.
2. Will just cause private schools to raise their fees. Meaning poor aren’t really helped by the subsidy.
3. Draws away money from public schools which have to meet a wide variety of needs.
4. Small school districts are against it since their schools are often the many center of community. Drawing away funds and students makes things harder for those communities.

1. Wealthy people are entitled to public services too, that’s why they are public and not low income programs.

2. The private schools are non profit so if they raise their prices the money is still spent on education, not a bad thing.

3. The money is meant for educating students not to fund public schools. It’s fine if the money follows the student.

4. In many of these communities churches are the center of the community, but we don’t fund them, do we?

1. Wealthy kids can and do attend public.

2. Bad assumption. Doesn’t help the poor people.

3. The money is meant for educating students via public schools.

The point of the voucher program is that parents (wealthy or poor), use public money to any educational institution ( private, charter or public).

You’re misunderstanding what vouchers are. You’re just saying what the state of current education is, which is public money goes to public schools. The vouchers are attempting to change this status quo.

There are already vouchers in DC. The only thing that’s changed is the price of private school. How is that changing the status quo? More public money for private school administrators, I guess. It’s hard for me to get excited about that.

Maybe you could get excited by higher graduation rates for voucher participants. In the end that’s what matters, not how much funding public schools burn through.

Perhaps the voucher program could target those student populations that usually have lower graduation rates like poor kids and kids with special needs and/or learning differences.

Why, we don’t care if affluent and middle class kids do their best? There aren’t a lot of programs targeting low income students that actually work.

And here I thought you were interested in higher graduation rates. Do you think affluent kids need help graduating?

Is this some kind of Robin Hood, tax the rich, give it to the poor? Affluent kids should also get a share public resources, but I’m fine if it’s capped somewhere so that middle class gets to use the vouchers as well.

Current state is either public school or pay out of pocket, which I don’t think it works. What’s wrong with the money following the kid, rich or poor?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Reasons why this is bad policy:
1. Mainly helps the wealthy who can already afford private schools.
2. Will just cause private schools to raise their fees. Meaning poor aren’t really helped by the subsidy.
3. Draws away money from public schools which have to meet a wide variety of needs.
4. Small school districts are against it since their schools are often the many center of community. Drawing away funds and students makes things harder for those communities.

1. Wealthy people are entitled to public services too, that’s why they are public and not low income programs.

2. The private schools are non profit so if they raise their prices the money is still spent on education, not a bad thing.

3. The money is meant for educating students not to fund public schools. It’s fine if the money follows the student.

4. In many of these communities churches are the center of the community, but we don’t fund them, do we?

#3 doesn't seem to take infrastructure into count.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’m not buying the tuition inflation argument. There are charter schools that make do with less money than private schools. My child is in one. The public district hates it and they always try to make their life harder.

When the government subsidizes something then demand and prices increase. Maybe not at your charter school since most people are wary of those setups, but private schools will certainly raise tuition.

Also sounds like fed funding to universities…

I think that is only true if everyone is getting subsidies. When there is a good chunck of students who are full pay, they can only raise it so high before they lose those students.

[Anonymous]

It really hurts crappy schools and crappy teachers

[Anonymous]

Someone has to do it full on and see what happens

The publics are in the toilet spending the most and in last place among developed nations.

[Anonymous]

Close all the schools and give the money directly to parents to hire their own teachers, like people did during Covid.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Someone has to do it full on and see what happens

The publics are in the toilet spending the most and in last place among developed nations.

DC already has vouchers and charters. The charters and publics are already funded on a per-pupil basis. But most poor kids can’t get admitted to Sidwell, not even with vouchers. Many aren’t even organized enough to lottery for charters. And the stream of government funding with limited oversight provides seemingly endless opportunities for waste, fraud, and abuse.