School Choice/Vouchers etc.

[SmashMouth]

13 hours ago, tvc184 said:

Is all of your numbers facts or is it speculation?

 Like I asked, is there a cutoff for the vounchers? I gave the example of $50,000. Is it $100,000? 

You say that if a less fortunate family doesn’t take the voucher, the banker is allowed to take it? Is that true so there is no threshold of family income?

 I need to find a page that has the facts but I keep seeing political pages with proponents from both sides which is useless. 

As of last year, no threshold of income. Of course, it may have changed since then...

[bullets13]

Saw this explanation on another site and wanted to post it. Some of it echos @SmashMouth's excellent post yesterday. 

 

 

Cost to send a student to a private school:  $10,000

Voucher given: $10,000

New cost to send a student to Private school: $15,000

All these poor inner-city kids stuck at under-performing public schools STILL won't be able to afford to go to a private school because the price was upped to keep them out.  Those private schools don't want those high-risk kids coming in dragging down their scores.  But all those schools just got a 5K raise per student without changing their demographics one iota.

All these poor rural kids stuck at under-performing schools STILL won't be able to attend a private school not only because they can't afford it....but also because the closest one is 100 miles away.  But those private schools also got a 5K raise per student without taking in any rural students.

But now tax dollars are going to be given to parents that could already afford to send their kids to private school even without the vouchers.

Welfare for the rich.

Rewards for an already wealthy private school lobby.

Things go unchanged at the underperforming schools.....but with less money to do it.

[SmashMouth]

16 hours ago, tvc184 said:

Is all of your numbers facts or is it speculation?

 Like I asked, is there a cutoff for the vounchers? I gave the example of $50,000. Is it $100,000? 

You say that if a less fortunate family doesn’t take the voucher, the banker is allowed to take it? Is that true so there is no threshold of family income?

 I need to find a page that has the facts but I keep seeing political pages with proponents from both sides which is useless. 

Saw this today:

An exact quote from Texas Senate Bill 2, the Texas Education Freedom Act:

Details of Senate Bill 2:  

1. Eligibility

○ Universal Access: Every Texas student may apply and, if accepted, participate in the ESA program—whether they are entering school for the first time, currently enrolled in public school, or currently enrolled in private school or homeschool.

2. Prioritization

○ If applications do not exceed the program’s capacity, all eligible students are accepted.

○ If applications exceed capacity, 80% of available positions will be filled by lottery among students who previously attended public school and are either from low-income households or have a disability. The remaining slots will be filled by lottery among all other eligible applicants.

3. Allocation per Student

○ Base Funding: Each participating student will receive at least $2,000 per year in their ESA.

○ Private School Funding: If a family elects to enroll their child in an accredited private school, that student will receive $10,000 per year—or $11,500 per year if the student has a disability. 

[baddog]

On 3/4/2025 at 1:53 PM, bullets13 said:

Saw this explanation on another site and wanted to post it. Some of it echos @SmashMouth's excellent post yesterday. 

 

 

Cost to send a student to a private school:  $10,000

Voucher given: $10,000

New cost to send a student to Private school: $15,000

All these poor inner-city kids stuck at under-performing public schools STILL won't be able to afford to go to a private school because the price was upped to keep them out.  Those private schools don't want those high-risk kids coming in dragging down their scores.  But all those schools just got a 5K raise per student without changing their demographics one iota.

All these poor rural kids stuck at under-performing schools STILL won't be able to attend a private school not only because they can't afford it....but also because the closest one is 100 miles away.  But those private schools also got a 5K raise per student without taking in any rural students.

But now tax dollars are going to be given to parents that could already afford to send their kids to private school even without the vouchers.

Welfare for the rich.

Rewards for an already wealthy private school lobby.

Things go unchanged at the underperforming schools.....but with less money to do it.

Good post. This is why I said it was unfair.

[LumRaiderFan]

On 3/4/2025 at 1:53 PM, bullets13 said:

Saw this explanation on another site and wanted to post it. Some of it echos @SmashMouth's excellent post yesterday. 

 

 

Cost to send a student to a private school:  $10,000

Voucher given: $10,000

New cost to send a student to Private school: $15,000

All these poor inner-city kids stuck at under-performing public schools STILL won't be able to afford to go to a private school because the price was upped to keep them out.  Those private schools don't want those high-risk kids coming in dragging down their scores.  But all those schools just got a 5K raise per student without changing their demographics one iota.

All these poor rural kids stuck at under-performing schools STILL won't be able to attend a private school not only because they can't afford it....but also because the closest one is 100 miles away.  But those private schools also got a 5K raise per student without taking in any rural students.

But now tax dollars are going to be given to parents that could already afford to send their kids to private school even without the vouchers.

Welfare for the rich.

Rewards for an already wealthy private school lobby.

Things go unchanged at the underperforming schools.....but with less money to do it.

Don’t necessarily agree that inner some inner city families won’t figure out how to get their kid in a better school when they get $10,000.  I also don’t agree that these kids will drag down scores, I think many times these kids may be more driven.

It’s all speculation at this point as to how it will affect school districts, but allowing a taxpayer to take THEIR money and apply it for a better opportunity for their kid is never a bad idea.

[bullets13]

1 hour ago, LumRaiderFan said:

Don’t necessarily agree that inner some inner city families won’t figure out how to get their kid in a better school when they get $10,000.  I also don’t agree that these kids will drag down scores, I think many times these kids may be more driven.

It’s all speculation at this point as to how it will affect school districts, but allowing a taxpayer to take THEIR money and apply it for a better opportunity for their kid is never a bad idea.

Still haven't had explained to me why they get more money to spend at a private school than their child earns a district when they attend public. And you can talk about "speculation", but there's literally no way that private schools are going to take in at-risk kids unless they have something exceptional to offer in athletics. Some of them won't drag down scores. Some of them absolutely will. And most of the schools won't take the risk. Taxpayers aren't going to be applying their money for better opportunities in 95% of the cases. In fact what will be happening is RICH taxpayers will get a nice rebate on the private tuition bill they already can afford to pay. The wealthiest Texans are certainly in favor of school vouchers. Why anyone else is is beyond me.

[bullets13]

It's also laughable that they're trying to pass this by stating that a main priority is to allow children with disabilities to transfer to private schools. NEWSFLASH: many, if not most, private schools do not have specialized classrooms for special education students. I've had multiple students in my sped class the last 4 years who's siblings attended private schools in Beaumont, but they came to me because those private schools did not have a sped class for them to attend. It's extremely expensive to care for children with severe needs. If a child, for instance, needed a full-time nurse, the district would be responsible for paying for that nurse. Does anyone really think that private schools would accept that child?

From an article I'm reading:

"Advocates and experts say the bills' broad definition of low-income families - along with lawmakers' unwillingness to require participating private schools to guarantee access to certain student groups - will likely mean Texas' voucher program, like in other states, will end up primarily serving families who are already paying to send their kids to private schools."

[LumRaiderFan]

21 minutes ago, bullets13 said:

Still haven't had explained to me why they get more money to spend at a private school than their child earns a district when they attend public. And you can talk about "speculation", but there's literally no way that private schools are going to take in at-risk kids unless they have something exceptional to offer in athletics. Some of them won't drag down scores. Some of them absolutely will. And most of the schools won't take the risk. Taxpayers aren't going to be applying their money for better opportunities in 95% of the cases. In fact what will be happening is RICH taxpayers will get a nice rebate on the private tuition bill they already can afford to pay. The wealthiest Texans are certainly in favor of school vouchers. Why anyone else is is beyond me.

I think you use the term rich pretty loosely, and I’m not here to argue, just giving my opinion.  I think it’s a little arrogant for folks from good schools to speak for folks from poor schools that may be able to get their kid to a better school but can’t afford to move.  What are you going to tell parents of kids that aren’t safe or aren’t learning in school?  That they can’t apply their money for a better school?  Giving folks a choice to leave a bad school is better for those that leave, period.

 

 

[bullets13]

14 minutes ago, LumRaiderFan said:

I think you use the term rich pretty loosely, and I’m not here to argue, just giving my opinion.  I think it’s a little arrogant for folks from good schools to speak for folks from poor schools that may be able to get their kid to a better school but can’t afford to move.  What are you going to tell parents of kids that aren’t safe or aren’t learning in school?  That they can’t apply their money for a better school?  Giving folks a choice to leave a bad school is better for those that leave, period.

 

 

I think it's a lot naive to think that this is what will actually happen with this bill. That said, if the state actually makes moves to ensure that only those who need this can use it, my opinion will change to some degree. But the following things are 100% going to happen:

1. Private schools will raise tuition to ensure that the poor and disabled are unable to make up the difference in cost, while maximizing their profit.

2. Private schools will not relax entry policies to allow those who are supposed to benefit from this plan to actually make it into their school.

3. Fly by night private schools will be opened to take advantage of these funds while not providing a proper education.

4. The overwhelming majority of people who'll benefit from this bill are going to be families who could already afford private school. They'll just get a nice rebate, just like has happened in EVERY state that has enacted these vouchers.
 

[LumRaiderFan]

3 minutes ago, bullets13 said:

I think it's a lot naive to think that this is what will actually happen with this bill. That said, if the state actually makes moves to ensure that only those who need this can use it, my opinion will change to some degree. But the following things are 100% going to happen:

1. Private schools will raise tuition to ensure that the poor and disabled are unable to make up the difference in cost, while maximizing their profit.

2. Private schools will not relax entry policies to allow those who are supposed to benefit from this plan to actually make it into their school.

3. Fly by night private schools will be opened to take advantage of these funds while not providing a proper education.

4. The overwhelming majority of people who'll benefit from this bill are going to be families who could already afford private school. They'll just get a nice rebate, just like has happened in EVERY state that has enacted these vouchers.
 

As you do many times, you give your opinion as if it’s 100 % fact, it is not.

You still haven’t told me what you tell folks that are in a bad school that could take that money and make it work somehow else, and there are plenty that will do just that.

These are the folks that should be considered, but you’re more concerned about all the “rich” folks that will game the system.

I hope they come up with a way to try it, rather than not try based on what folks “think” will happen.

 

 

 

[bullets13]

38 minutes ago, LumRaiderFan said:

As you do many times, you give your opinion as if it’s 100 % fact, it is not.

You still haven’t told me what you tell folks that are in a bad school that could take that money and make it work somehow else, and there are plenty that will do just that.

These are the folks that should be considered, but you’re more concerned about all the “rich” folks that will game the system.

I hope they come up with a way to try it, rather than not try based on what folks “think” will happen.

 

 

 

Here's some data from other states doing school vouchers: 

• In Arkansas, 95% of voucher recipients did not attend public school in the year prior to receiving vouchers. 
   
• In Arizona, 75% of voucher program users were already in private school. 
   
• In Ohio, the percentage of voucher students who had already attended a private school jumped from 7% in 2019 to almost 55% in 2023 after the expansion of the EdChoice program. 
   
• In Iowa, two-thirds of students who received a voucher were already enrolled in private school. 

 

As the legislation is currently worded, Texas will be closer to Arkansas than Ohio. You're absolutely right, some deserving students will benefit. But more often than not it's going to benefit those who don't need the help. Your argument is not unlike the democrats criticizing the dismantling of USAID. Their supposition is that all of the mismanagement, fraud, misuse, and theft isn't a good reason to end USAID because some of what they do is beneficial, which is inarguable. USAID does some good things. The same can be said for school vouchers. I'm personally not okay with $1B being taken from the public school coffers for a program that will likely in 80-90% of instances benefit those who already can afford private school, despite the fact that the program will help a small percentage of poor and poorish students. And that's not even factoring in that a good portion of public school kids who will take advantage of the program are going to be solidly middle class who just choose to leave a good school to go to a private school.

[LumRaiderFan]

5 minutes ago, bullets13 said:

Here's some data from other states doing school vouchers: 

• In Arkansas, 95% of voucher recipients did not attend public school in the year prior to receiving vouchers. 
   
• In Arizona, 75% of voucher program users were already in private school. 
   
• In Ohio, the percentage of voucher students who had already attended a private school jumped from 7% in 2019 to almost 55% in 2023 after the expansion of the EdChoice program. 
   
• In Iowa, two-thirds of students who received a voucher were already enrolled in private school. 

 

As the legislation is currently worded, Texas will be closer to Arkansas than Ohio. You're absolutely right, some deserving students will benefit. But more often than not it's going to benefit those who don't need the help. Your argument is not unlike the democrats criticizing the dismantling of USAID. Their supposition is that all of the mismanagement, fraud, misuse, and theft isn't a good reason to end USAID because some of what they do is beneficial, which is inarguable. USAID does some good things. The same can be said for school vouchers. I'm personally not okay with $1B being taken from the public school coffers for a program that will likely in 80-90% of instances benefit those who already can afford private school, despite the fact that the program will help a small percentage of poor and poorish students. And that's not even factoring in that a good portion of public school kids who will take advantage of the program are going to be solidly middle class who just choose to leave a good school to go to a private school.

Certainly there will be those that try to take advantage of any program, but that’s not reason to simply stop trying to come up with something that will work.  The main problem to be solved is kids that aren’t getting a quality education.

I’ve put 4 kids through school in Lumberton and at no time would I have pulled my kid out to go to Kelly, even if I could have had a little extra cash.  Not knocking Kelly at all, great school, but Lumberton schools are as well.  If folks are in a substandard school and choose to leave, I would think that’s on the school to fix.

We need to figure out a way to give kids in poor options better ones.

[bullets13]

26 minutes ago, LumRaiderFan said:

Certainly there will be those that try to take advantage of any program, but that’s not reason to simply stop trying to come up with something that will work.  The main problem to be solved is kids that aren’t getting a quality education.

I’ve put 4 kids through school in Lumberton and at no time would I have pulled my kid out to go to Kelly, even if I could have had a little extra cash.  Not knocking Kelly at all, great school, but Lumberton schools are as well.  If folks are in a substandard school and choose to leave, I would think that’s on the school to fix.

We need to figure out a way to give kids in poor options better ones.

I agree with this. A program designed to predominantly help the wealthy and upper middle class, but will help a small portion of the poor and underrepresented is not the answer. Taking $1B from the public schools where the majority of these kids in poor options already attend isn't the answer either.

[SmashMouth]

On 3/13/2025 at 2:42 PM, LumRaiderFan said:

We need to figure out a way to give kids in poor options better ones.

Send them to a quality open campus public school?

[LumRaiderFan]

1 hour ago, SmashMouth said:

Send them to a quality open campus public school?

That would definitely be an option.

Schools provide a service, if the service is bad, customers should be able to have the option to take their business elsewhere.

 

[AggiesAreWe]

8 minutes ago, LumRaiderFan said:

That would definitely be an option.

Schools provide a service, if the service is bad, customers should be able to have the option to take their business elsewhere.

 

When a student transfers to another public school, that school will receive funding from the state for that student. State funding to a public school is based on enrollment.

Are you suggesting that the parent (s) receive funding as well for making that transfer? 

Wouldn't that be double dipping the state?

I thought you were for less government?

[LumRaiderFan]

12 minutes ago, AggiesAreWe said:

When a student transfers to another public school, that school will receive funding from the state for that student. State funding to a public school is based on enrollment.

Are you suggesting that the parent (s) receive funding as well for making that transfer? 

Wouldn't that be double dipping the state?

I thought you were for less government?

Not a fan of the state sending money to INDEPENDENT school districts but why couldn’t state money follow the student?

I’ll throw it back at you, what do you do for students in a bad school district that want better but can’t relocate?

And yes, I am for less government.

[AggiesAreWe]

42 minutes ago, LumRaiderFan said:

Not a fan of the state sending money to INDEPENDENT school districts but why couldn’t state money follow the student?

I’ll throw it back at you, what do you do for students in a bad school district that want better but can’t relocate?

And yes, I am for less government.

It does follow the student to another public school district. Public school districts are funded by the state per enrollment.

School district lose money when their enrollment drops while it increases when their enrollment grows.

So you are saying that your school tax money stays in the city you pay it and doesn't go to the state?

As for the throw back, I would suggest what you would likely suggest a person on welfare do. Get a better job and get off welfare.

Take care of themselves and not let government take care of them.

[LumRaiderFan]

8 minutes ago, AggiesAreWe said:

It does follow the student to another public school district. Public school districts are funded by the state per enrollment.

School district lose money when their enrollment drops while it increases when their enrollment grows.

So you are saying that your school tax money stays in the city you pay it and doesn't go to the state?

As for the throw back, I would suggest what you would likely suggest a person on welfare do. Get a better job and get off welfare.

Take care of themselves and not let government take care of them.

So no solution from you on options to give someone in a failing school district?

Only this, lol.

As far as welfare, great suggestion, I would even make it mandatory for the able bodied.

[SmashMouth]

1 minute ago, LumRaiderFan said:

So no solution from you on options to give someone in a failing school district?

Only this, lol.

No, it was a question. Among many options, it is a viable one. I’m not 100% against school vouchers…just its current form. 

[SmashMouth]

1 minute ago, SmashMouth said:

No, it was a question. Among many options, it is a viable one. I’m not 100% against school vouchers…just its current form. 

 

4 minutes ago, LumRaiderFan said:

So no solution from you on options to give someone in a failing school district?

Only this, lol.

Sorry, it brought me to AAW’s post to reply. Weird. 

[LumRaiderFan]

1 minute ago, SmashMouth said:

 

Sorry, it brought me to AAW’s post to reply. Weird. 

No worries! 

[HuntersLaptop2028]

Obviously worse off for public schools, especially the schools in rural or poorer districts where parents can’t just magically buy a new house in a better neighborhood.

But this is what the people voted for so good luck 

[SmashMouth]

18 hours ago, HuntersLaptop2028 said:

Obviously worse off for public schools, especially the schools in rural or poorer districts where parents can’t just magically buy a new house in a better neighborhood.

But this is what the people voted for so good luck 

Definitely a mistake in its current form...

[SmashMouth]

The way schools are funded are as follows (2022/2023 numbers):

About 95% of the money comes from 3 pots:

$29B - Local property tax revenue, which is determined the value of properties in a district and a tax rate set by each school board.

$23.1B - State funds that come from numerous state taxes, including Texas’ sales tax.

$14.13B - Federal taxpayer funds, which largely help cover the costs of providing meals to kids and giving support to low-income children and students with disabilities.

There's another $4B (roughly the other 5% that comes from miscellaneous local resources - not sure what that really is)

Here's what I'm concerned about. If a local ISD loses too much funding due to voucher kids going to private schools, the government (pick which level) is going to come in and bail that school district out. Where does that money come from? You guessed it! US, the taxpayer!

The net effect is that private "for profit" schools make more money, higher earners who already pay for private tuition get a large break in tuition and my tax liability gets increased to fund it. Meanwhile, the poor bastards that couldn't afford private tuition in the first place STILL can't afford it, and the saga continues. Make it make sense...