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.

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…

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?

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.