aTmAg said:

---

If you want more people to be able to read, write, and understand the issues then you should WANT the best education possible, and that means privatized education.

---

which half the population would refuse to pay for, leaving us with an illiterate electorate

Interesting fact. Since they are funded on Average Daily Attendance. Each student missing school a day equates to a district receiving $40 less that day. Expenses remain the same (minus maybe a meal not eaten or toilet paper not used). It's crazy to think about that funding formula / mechanism.

1939 said:

---

If vouchers pass then why would private schools not just raise their rates so that only the people that can afford it now will be the only ones that can afford it then?

---

Existing private schools that are maxed out would do that. But new schools or expanding schools, that today cannot compete with "free" public schools, would lose out on lots of customers (and money) if they did that after vouchers.


One problem with vouchers is that it won't save money. It's money neutral. Every school will charge at least the voucher amount. That is one way pure privatization is better than even vouchers (and way better than public).

Antoninus said:

---

aTmAg said:

---

If you want more people to be able to read, write, and understand the issues then you should WANT the best education possible, and that means privatized education.

---

which half the population would refuse to pay for, leaving us with an illiterate electorate

---

Easy choice, narrow down the electorate.

Burdizzo said:

---

Science Denier said:

---

Antoninus said:

---

aTmAg said:

---

This should be obvious to everybody.)

---

what is "obvious" is the you do not understand the meaning of the word "socialist."

not every policy that you dislike is "socialist." Not every bad policy is "socialist."

---

Taking from the rich and giving handouts to the "poor" is pretty much the definition of socialism.

---

So is funding a military that protects all citizens from our enemies, regardless of how much each citizen pays.

---

Providing for the national defense is a Constitutional duty of the federal government. Nice try.

Antoninus said:

---

aTmAg said:

---

If you want more people to be able to read, write, and understand the issues then you should WANT the best education possible, and that means privatized education.

---

which half the population would refuse to pay for, leaving us with an illiterate electorate

---

Pfft... hardly.

We would have less illiterate people than today. It's an economic certainty. Prices would go way down, and quality would go way up. Drugged out parents wouldn't send their kids to school, but their kids should be taken away anyway.

harge57 said:

---

Antoninus said:

---

simple question.

Let's completely do away with public schooling.

Do you want 10 million people in this state exercising the franchise, with no education whatsoever. Unable to read. Unable to write. Unable to even remotely understand the issues.

Do you want those people selecting the members of the legislator and executive branch?

if you answered "no," then even you acknowledge that education is, at least in part, a "public ghod."

---

That is what is coming out of the public schools today.

---

No it's not. Not even close. Every college and university in the state is filled with public school graduates. The number of failing schools is a fraction of the total, but voucher proponents like to latch on to those few schools like they are the rule, when they are very much the exception.

Ag87H2O said:

---

Burdizzo said:

---

Science Denier said:

---

Antoninus said:

---

aTmAg said:

---

This should be obvious to everybody.)

---

what is "obvious" is the you do not understand the meaning of the word "socialist."

not every policy that you dislike is "socialist." Not every bad policy is "socialist."

---

Taking from the rich and giving handouts to the "poor" is pretty much the definition of socialism.

---

So is funding a military that protects all citizens from our enemies, regardless of how much each citizen pays.

---

Providing for the national defense is a Constitutional duty of the federal government. Nice try.

---

Providing a free and efficient system of public education is a constitutional duty of the State of Texas. Something that a bunch of farmers (not socialists) wrote into our constitution in 1876.

Ag87H2O said:

---

Burdizzo said:

---

Science Denier said:

---

Antoninus said:

---

aTmAg said:

---

This should be obvious to everybody.)

---

what is "obvious" is the you do not understand the meaning of the word "socialist."

not every policy that you dislike is "socialist." Not every bad policy is "socialist."

---

Taking from the rich and giving handouts to the "poor" is pretty much the definition of socialism.

---

So is funding a military that protects all citizens from our enemies, regardless of how much each citizen pays.

---

Providing for the national defense is a Constitutional duty of the federal government. Nice try.

---

And providing funding for education is a Constitutional duty of the state government.

WT FOX said:

---

Antoninus said:

---

aTmAg said:

---

If you want more people to be able to read, write, and understand the issues then you should WANT the best education possible, and that means privatized education.

---

which half the population would refuse to pay for, leaving us with an illiterate electorate

---

Easy choice, narrow down the electorate.

---

so, in order to make education actually constitute of "socialism," we would need to amend the constitution in order to narrow the franchise.

OK.

Booma94 said:

---

harge57 said:

---

Antoninus said:

---

simple question.

Let's completely do away with public schooling.

Do you want 10 million people in this state exercising the franchise, with no education whatsoever. Unable to read. Unable to write. Unable to even remotely understand the issues.

Do you want those people selecting the members of the legislator and executive branch?

if you answered "no," then even you acknowledge that education is, at least in part, a "public ghod."

---

That is what is coming out of the public schools today.

---

No it's not. Not even close. Every college and university in the state is filled with public school graduates. The number of failing schools is a fraction of the total, but voucher proponents like to latch on to those few schools like they are the rule, when they are very much the exception.

---

Rightly so. As a voucher program would allow kids doomed to those few school to leave and go to better schools. It's ridiculous that you want to basically impose on them a life sentence of poverty because they live closer to a crappy school.

twk said:

---

Ag87H2O said:

---

Burdizzo said:

---

Science Denier said:

---

Antoninus said:

---

aTmAg said:

---

This should be obvious to everybody.)

---

what is "obvious" is the you do not understand the meaning of the word "socialist."

not every policy that you dislike is "socialist." Not every bad policy is "socialist."

---

Taking from the rich and giving handouts to the "poor" is pretty much the definition of socialism.

---

So is funding a military that protects all citizens from our enemies, regardless of how much each citizen pays.

---

Providing for the national defense is a Constitutional duty of the federal government. Nice try.

---

Providing a free and efficient system of public education is a constitutional duty of the State of Texas. Something that a bunch of farmers (not socialists) wrote into our constitution in 1876.

---

Those farmers were economically illiterate. We know more now. We should correct this mistake and improve thigs after 150 years.

aTmAg said:

---

Booma94 said:

---

harge57 said:

---

Antoninus said:

---

simple question.

Let's completely do away with public schooling.

Do you want 10 million people in this state exercising the franchise, with no education whatsoever. Unable to read. Unable to write. Unable to even remotely understand the issues.

Do you want those people selecting the members of the legislator and executive branch?

if you answered "no," then even you acknowledge that education is, at least in part, a "public ghod."

---

That is what is coming out of the public schools today.

---

No it's not. Not even close. Every college and university in the state is filled with public school graduates. The number of failing schools is a fraction of the total, but voucher proponents like to latch on to those few schools like they are the rule, when they are very much the exception.

---

Rightly so. As a voucher program would allow kids doomed to those few school to leave and go to better schools. It's ridiculous that you want to basically impose on them a life sentence of poverty because they live closer to a crappy school.

---

If vouchers were limited to kids trapped in attendance zones of failing schools, or means tested for lower income (lower middle class and poor), then that might happen. But, if we do across the board vouchers, available to everyone, we are just going to see most of that money eaten up by private school tuition inflation.

twk said:

---

Ag87H2O said:

---

Providing for the national defense is a Constitutional duty of the federal government. Nice try.

---

Providing a free and efficient system of public education is a constitutional duty of the State of Texas. Something that a bunch of farmers (not socialists) wrote into our constitution in 1876.

---

19th century Texans were all Marxist and socialist. Did you not realize that?

twk said:

---

Ag87H2O said:

---

Burdizzo said:

---

Science Denier said:

---

Antoninus said:

---

aTmAg said:

---

This should be obvious to everybody.)

---

what is "obvious" is the you do not understand the meaning of the word "socialist."

not every policy that you dislike is "socialist." Not every bad policy is "socialist."

---

Taking from the rich and giving handouts to the "poor" is pretty much the definition of socialism.

---

So is funding a military that protects all citizens from our enemies, regardless of how much each citizen pays.

---

Providing for the national defense is a Constitutional duty of the federal government. Nice try.

---

Providing a free and efficient system of public education is a constitutional duty of the State of Texas. Something that a bunch of farmers (not socialists) wrote into our constitution in 1876.

---

There's nothing free about it. Every dime comes from taxpayers. I wouldn't call it efficient either.

The state can choose to make vouchers part of that system and still live up to their constitutional duty.

Yes, and I think the biggest argument (aside from the binary voucher or no voucher) is what type of program is being proposed and presented? Universal? Special Ed? What about rural where there are no privates? Etc Etc. I'd be interested in seeing all of those states that have some sort of program; what are the specifics of their program? What have been the pros and cons from student performance to cost to taxpayers? I never see the argument get to that point. It always derails way before that.

aTmAg said:

---

twk said:

---

Providing a free and efficient system of public education is a constitutional duty of the State of Texas. Something that a bunch of farmers (not socialists) wrote into our constitution in 1876.

---

Those farmers were economically illiterate. We know more now. We should correct this mistake and improve thigs after 150 years.

---

the draftsman of the US Constitution in 1789 where omniscient geniuses, while the draftsman at the Texas Constitution in 1876 were illiterate buffoons?

OK.

If you want the cars of today to be the same car that will be made in 100 years, have it be made by the government and be provided to each person who needs it through taxes. There will be minor adjustments and a massive bloated bureaucracy associated with it, but that will be the mode of transportation for generations. There will be no innovation, there will be no advancement in how we get from point A to point B. Not major inflection point where we do anything differently.

There will be huge economic incentives to oppose ANY change to the system, no matter how much better it is in the long term, because of danger to the existing system.

THAT is the current state of public education.

Booma94 said:

---

harge57 said:

---

Antoninus said:

---

simple question.

Let's completely do away with public schooling.

Do you want 10 million people in this state exercising the franchise, with no education whatsoever. Unable to read. Unable to write. Unable to even remotely understand the issues.

Do you want those people selecting the members of the legislator and executive branch?

if you answered "no," then even you acknowledge that education is, at least in part, a "public ghod."

---

That is what is coming out of the public schools today.

---

No it's not. Not even close. Every college and university in the state is filled with public school graduates. The number of failing schools is a fraction of the total, but voucher proponents like to latch on to those few schools like they are the rule, when they are very much the exception.

---

Look at the statewide TEA reports. Typically less than half the students meet the grade level in most categories.

For minorities its typically a 1/3 of the students meet the grade level.

BMX Bandit said:

---

Quote:

---

Looking forward to how you keep rural schools funded when one of your primary mechanisms is still Robin Hood.

---

nothing will change how good rural school are funded.

if they are good schools and people like them, why would there be a mass exodus of kids leaving?

and anyone whose school is supported by robin hood should be a little embarrassed.

Quote:

---

Secondly will these vouchers be accepted by private schools. I know some don't because they know strings will be stretched. But you don't hear that. You think the bureaucrats are going sit idly by?

---

some will, some won't. that is not a reason not to pass the bill and let people choose where their money goes. I know you are big robin hood guy, but conservative texas republicans want to spend their money on their kids.

---

And then claim they are doing this for the less fortunate.

Antoninus said:

---

WT FOX said:

---

Antoninus said:

---

aTmAg said:

---

If you want more people to be able to read, write, and understand the issues then you should WANT the best education possible, and that means privatized education.

---

which half the population would refuse to pay for, leaving us with an illiterate electorate

---

Easy choice, narrow down the electorate.

---

so, in order to make education actually constitute of "socialism," we would need to amend the constitution in order to narrow the franchise.

OK.

---

Public education is already socialism. To eliminate the moral hazard of the uneducated voting, a large percentage of the electorate needs to be disenfranchised.

Only net federal taxpayers should be permitted to vote.

twk said:

---

aTmAg said:

---

Booma94 said:

---

harge57 said:

---

Antoninus said:

---

simple question.

Let's completely do away with public schooling.

Do you want 10 million people in this state exercising the franchise, with no education whatsoever. Unable to read. Unable to write. Unable to even remotely understand the issues.

Do you want those people selecting the members of the legislator and executive branch?

if you answered "no," then even you acknowledge that education is, at least in part, a "public ghod."

---

That is what is coming out of the public schools today.

---

No it's not. Not even close. Every college and university in the state is filled with public school graduates. The number of failing schools is a fraction of the total, but voucher proponents like to latch on to those few schools like they are the rule, when they are very much the exception.

---

Rightly so. As a voucher program would allow kids doomed to those few school to leave and go to better schools. It's ridiculous that you want to basically impose on them a life sentence of poverty because they live closer to a crappy school.

---

If vouchers were limited to kids trapped in attendance zones of failing schools, or means tested for lower income (lower middle class and poor), then that might happen. But, if we do across the board vouchers, available to everyone, we are just going to see most of that money eaten up by private school tuition inflation.

---

First of all, that statement implies that you don't understand inflation. There is no such thing as "food inflation" or "tuition inflation". Inflation is an undue expansion of the money supply that usually increases ALL prices. It's NOT merely "prices going up".

Secondly, current private schools do not try to compete against "free" public schools. They, by definition, are getting undercut and therefore would go out of business. So they focus on rich clientele that can afford to pay taxes AND pay a tuition on top. They are competing with each other, not public schools.

But after a voucher system, that would change. Afterwards, the demand for inexpensive private education would go WAY up, and new private schools would pop up to fill the demand. They would need to compete just like grocery stores and auto dealers. Depending on if taxpayers can keep the surplus, schools will either charge the voucher amount or less. Just like what occurs everywhere else in the market.

harge57 said:

---

Booma94 said:

---

harge57 said:

---

Antoninus said:

---

simple question.

Let's completely do away with public schooling.

Do you want 10 million people in this state exercising the franchise, with no education whatsoever. Unable to read. Unable to write. Unable to even remotely understand the issues.

Do you want those people selecting the members of the legislator and executive branch?

if you answered "no," then even you acknowledge that education is, at least in part, a "public ghod."

---

That is what is coming out of the public schools today.

---

No it's not. Not even close. Every college and university in the state is filled with public school graduates. The number of failing schools is a fraction of the total, but voucher proponents like to latch on to those few schools like they are the rule, when they are very much the exception.

---

Look at the statewide TEA reports. Typically less than half the students meet the grade level in most categories.

For minorities its typically a 1/3 of the students meet the grade level.

---

Good news is you won't have to worry about those reports much longer.

Phatbob said:

---

If you want the cars of today to be the same car that will be made in 100 years, have it be made by the government and be provided to each person who needs it through taxes. There will be minor adjustments and a massive bloated bureaucracy associated with it, but that will be the mode of transportation for generations. There will be no innovation, there will be no advancement in how we get from point A to point B. Not major inflection point where we do anything differently.

There will be huge economic incentives to oppose ANY change to the system, no matter how much better it is in the long term, because of danger to the existing system.

THAT is the current state of public education.

---

I think your premise is absolutely backwards.

The problem with public education is that we've gotten away from what we were doing 50 or 75 years ago. Some of it has been intentional and pitched as "innovation," while some of it has been a side effect of other political concerns (removing the ability to discipline kids for fear that it is discrimination), but no one would say that we are doing education now the same way we did back then.

aTmAg said:

---

Booma94 said:

---

harge57 said:

---

Antoninus said:

---

simple question.

Let's completely do away with public schooling.

Do you want 10 million people in this state exercising the franchise, with no education whatsoever. Unable to read. Unable to write. Unable to even remotely understand the issues.

Do you want those people selecting the members of the legislator and executive branch?

if you answered "no," then even you acknowledge that education is, at least in part, a "public ghod."

---

That is what is coming out of the public schools today.

---

No it's not. Not even close. Every college and university in the state is filled with public school graduates. The number of failing schools is a fraction of the total, but voucher proponents like to latch on to those few schools like they are the rule, when they are very much the exception.

---

Rightly so. As a voucher program would allow kids doomed to those few school to leave and go to better schools. It's ridiculous that you want to basically impose on them a life sentence of poverty because they live closer to a crappy school.

---

They have that right and ability now. If a kid attends a failing public school, they can enroll in any neighboring district or public school that they desire, and the neighboring public school has to accept them and gets the associated funding.

Antoninus said:

---

aTmAg said:

---

twk said:

---

Providing a free and efficient system of public education is a constitutional duty of the State of Texas. Something that a bunch of farmers (not socialists) wrote into our constitution in 1876.

---

Those farmers were economically illiterate. We know more now. We should correct this mistake and improve thigs after 150 years.

---

the draftsman of the US Constitution in 1789 where omniscient geniuses, while the draftsman at the Texas Constitution in 1876 were illiterate buffoons?

OK.

---

There are mistakes in the US Constitution too. But fewer than the Texas Constitution. The US founding fathers, were a collection of geniuses not seen prior or sense. That was a freak of nature event.


Regardless if something is in the US constitution, state constitution, law, or HOA rules... if it tries to use government to provide a rivalrous and excludable service, it will always turn out poorly.

Booma94 said:

---

aTmAg said:

---

Booma94 said:

---

harge57 said:

---

Antoninus said:

---

simple question.

Let's completely do away with public schooling.

Do you want 10 million people in this state exercising the franchise, with no education whatsoever. Unable to read. Unable to write. Unable to even remotely understand the issues.

Do you want those people selecting the members of the legislator and executive branch?

if you answered "no," then even you acknowledge that education is, at least in part, a "public ghod."

---

That is what is coming out of the public schools today.

---

No it's not. Not even close. Every college and university in the state is filled with public school graduates. The number of failing schools is a fraction of the total, but voucher proponents like to latch on to those few schools like they are the rule, when they are very much the exception.

---

Rightly so. As a voucher program would allow kids doomed to those few school to leave and go to better schools. It's ridiculous that you want to basically impose on them a life sentence of poverty because they live closer to a crappy school.

---

They have that right and ability now. If a kid attends a failing public school, they can enroll in any neighboring district or public school that they desire, and the neighboring public school has to accept them and gets the associated funding.

---

But not private schools. That's the problem. They should be able to go ANYWHERE to get the education they want and need.

aTmAg said:

---

twk said:

---

aTmAg said:

---

Booma94 said:

---

harge57 said:

---

Antoninus said:

---

simple question.

Let's completely do away with public schooling.

Do you want 10 million people in this state exercising the franchise, with no education whatsoever. Unable to read. Unable to write. Unable to even remotely understand the issues.

Do you want those people selecting the members of the legislator and executive branch?

if you answered "no," then even you acknowledge that education is, at least in part, a "public ghod."

---

That is what is coming out of the public schools today.

---

No it's not. Not even close. Every college and university in the state is filled with public school graduates. The number of failing schools is a fraction of the total, but voucher proponents like to latch on to those few schools like they are the rule, when they are very much the exception.

---

Rightly so. As a voucher program would allow kids doomed to those few school to leave and go to better schools. It's ridiculous that you want to basically impose on them a life sentence of poverty because they live closer to a crappy school.

---

If vouchers were limited to kids trapped in attendance zones of failing schools, or means tested for lower income (lower middle class and poor), then that might happen. But, if we do across the board vouchers, available to everyone, we are just going to see most of that money eaten up by private school tuition inflation.

---

First of all, that statement implies that you don't understand inflation. There is no such thing as "food inflation" or "tuition inflation". Inflation is an undue expansion of the money supply that usually increases ALL prices. It's NOT merely "prices going up".

Secondly, current private schools do not try to compete against "free" public schools. They, by definition, are getting undercut and therefore would go out of business. So they focus on rich clientele that can afford to pay taxes AND pay a tuition on top. They are competing with each other, not public schools.

But after a voucher system, that would change. Afterwards, the demand for inexpensive private education would go WAY up, and new private schools would pop up to fill the demand. They would need to compete just like grocery stores and auto dealers. Depending on if taxpayers can keep the surplus, schools will either charge the voucher amount or less. Just like what occurs everywhere else in the market.

---

Just like what easy subsidized loans has done for the cost of college tuition

twk said:

---

Phatbob said:

---

If you want the cars of today to be the same car that will be made in 100 years, have it be made by the government and be provided to each person who needs it through taxes. There will be minor adjustments and a massive bloated bureaucracy associated with it, but that will be the mode of transportation for generations. There will be no innovation, there will be no advancement in how we get from point A to point B. Not major inflection point where we do anything differently.

There will be huge economic incentives to oppose ANY change to the system, no matter how much better it is in the long term, because of danger to the existing system.

THAT is the current state of public education.

---

I think your premise is absolutely backwards.

The problem with public education is that we've gotten away from what we were doing 50 or 75 years ago. Some of it has been intentional and pitched as "innovation," while some of it has been a side effect of other political concerns (removing the ability to discipline kids for fear that it is discrimination), but no one would say that we are doing education now the same way we did back then.

---

Guess what? If customers could "vote with their feet", then that would have been squashed long ago. Schools that tried to "innovate" with BS would have gone under.

This is exactly the point the education system should be left to the local level, not through a Robinhood program.

Agthatbuilds said:

---

This article is wild from khou .

https://www.khou.com/article/news/politics/elections/texas-republicans-primary-election-results-2024/285-e0aa4376-8c62-4c93-bbc3-8a44d5f508a8

At the very bottom, it's a story from the texas tribune. Maybe khou should choose a less overtly biased contributor before they try and pass it off as news.

---

LMAO. Establishment is PISSED!!!

cevans_40 said:

---

aTmAg said:

---

twk said:

---

aTmAg said:

---

Booma94 said:

---

harge57 said:

---

Antoninus said:

---

simple question.

Let's completely do away with public schooling.

Do you want 10 million people in this state exercising the franchise, with no education whatsoever. Unable to read. Unable to write. Unable to even remotely understand the issues.

Do you want those people selecting the members of the legislator and executive branch?

if you answered "no," then even you acknowledge that education is, at least in part, a "public ghod."

---

That is what is coming out of the public schools today.

---

No it's not. Not even close. Every college and university in the state is filled with public school graduates. The number of failing schools is a fraction of the total, but voucher proponents like to latch on to those few schools like they are the rule, when they are very much the exception.

---

Rightly so. As a voucher program would allow kids doomed to those few school to leave and go to better schools. It's ridiculous that you want to basically impose on them a life sentence of poverty because they live closer to a crappy school.

---

If vouchers were limited to kids trapped in attendance zones of failing schools, or means tested for lower income (lower middle class and poor), then that might happen. But, if we do across the board vouchers, available to everyone, we are just going to see most of that money eaten up by private school tuition inflation.

---

First of all, that statement implies that you don't understand inflation. There is no such thing as "food inflation" or "tuition inflation". Inflation is an undue expansion of the money supply that usually increases ALL prices. It's NOT merely "prices going up".

Secondly, current private schools do not try to compete against "free" public schools. They, by definition, are getting undercut and therefore would go out of business. So they focus on rich clientele that can afford to pay taxes AND pay a tuition on top. They are competing with each other, not public schools.

But after a voucher system, that would change. Afterwards, the demand for inexpensive private education would go WAY up, and new private schools would pop up to fill the demand. They would need to compete just like grocery stores and auto dealers. Depending on if taxpayers can keep the surplus, schools will either charge the voucher amount or less. Just like what occurs everywhere else in the market.

---

Just like what easy subsidized loans has done for the cost of college tuition

---

Which is why pure privatization is the best of all worlds. Vouchers are merely an improvement over our current public system (which is a low bar).

aTmAg said:

---

twk said:

---

aTmAg said:

---

Booma94 said:

---

harge57 said:

---

Antoninus said:

---

simple question.

Let's completely do away with public schooling.

Do you want 10 million people in this state exercising the franchise, with no education whatsoever. Unable to read. Unable to write. Unable to even remotely understand the issues.

Do you want those people selecting the members of the legislator and executive branch?

if you answered "no," then even you acknowledge that education is, at least in part, a "public ghod."

---

That is what is coming out of the public schools today.

---

No it's not. Not even close. Every college and university in the state is filled with public school graduates. The number of failing schools is a fraction of the total, but voucher proponents like to latch on to those few schools like they are the rule, when they are very much the exception.

---

Rightly so. As a voucher program would allow kids doomed to those few school to leave and go to better schools. It's ridiculous that you want to basically impose on them a life sentence of poverty because they live closer to a crappy school.

---

If vouchers were limited to kids trapped in attendance zones of failing schools, or means tested for lower income (lower middle class and poor), then that might happen. But, if we do across the board vouchers, available to everyone, we are just going to see most of that money eaten up by private school tuition inflation.

---

First of all, that statement implies that you don't understand inflation. There is no such thing as "food inflation" or "tuition inflation". Inflation is an undue expansion of the money supply that usually increases ALL prices. It's NOT merely "prices going up".

Secondly, current private schools do not try to compete against "free" public schools. They, by definition, are getting undercut and therefore would go out of business. So they focus on rich clientele that can afford to pay taxes AND pay a tuition on top. They are competing with each other, not public schools.

But after a voucher system, that would change. Afterwards, the demand for inexpensive private education would go WAY up, and new private schools would pop up to fill the demand. They would need to compete just like grocery stores and auto dealers. Depending on if taxpayers can keep the surplus, schools will either charge the voucher amount or less. Just like what occurs everywhere else in the market.

---

Your assessment of your own economic knowledge, and that of others, is unique, shall we say.

Expanding the money supply drives inflation throughout the economy. But one can talk about increases in a sector as inflation; that is a matter of English, not economics. Stop being so pedantic. It just derails the thread.

The idea that well heeled parents are going to be price conscious and shop for the cheapest option is laughable. Not everything is a widget.

angus55 said:

---

BMX Bandit said:

---

look forward to the spin from posters that claim rural republicans don't want vouchers and are just too dimwitted to understand the ballot language

---

Looking forward to how you keep rural schools funded when one of your primary mechanisms is still Robin Hood. Secondly will these vouchers be accepted by private schools. I know some don't because they know strings will be stretched. But you don't hear that. You think the bureaucrats are going sit idly by?

---

Don't worry yourself too much about it.

I can speak for very rural San Saba Co. The county is awash in money. So much so that they dropped the property tax on my ranch more than 30% this year. This once "poor" county now has so many huge homes, owned by absentee landowners, that "the rich" essentially fund the county that is not their primary residence. Quite the dynamic that has emerged over the last two decades in rural Texas. And while the tax base has skyrocketed, the population hasn't.

We'll be fine.

twk said:

---

Phatbob said:

---

If you want the cars of today to be the same car that will be made in 100 years, have it be made by the government and be provided to each person who needs it through taxes. There will be minor adjustments and a massive bloated bureaucracy associated with it, but that will be the mode of transportation for generations. There will be no innovation, there will be no advancement in how we get from point A to point B. Not major inflection point where we do anything differently.

There will be huge economic incentives to oppose ANY change to the system, no matter how much better it is in the long term, because of danger to the existing system.

THAT is the current state of public education.

---

I think your premise is absolutely backwards.

The problem with public education is that we've gotten away from what we were doing 50 or 75 years ago. Some of it has been intentional and pitched as "innovation," while some of it has been a side effect of other political concerns (removing the ability to discipline kids for fear that it is discrimination), but no one would say that we are doing education now the same way we did back then.

---

There are some minor adjustments, but the structure of the school system (what does a student do during a day of "school") is not much different. Every single kid still go to a set building, sits at a desk for x hours a day doing the exact same thing as x number of other kids in front of a teacher who hopefully knows something about what they are teaching, and whose entire job involves being with those kids all day. All that run in a system with roughly the same administrative setup. So no, there are not that many differences as far as that goes.