aTmAg said:

---

Take the current education budget per year, divide it by the number of school age kids, then mail a check to each school for that amount multiplied by the number of students they have enrolled.

The math is not that hard. I don't understand the confusion.

---

Assume 5% of kids go to private school. A good school that does not have any issues would have an immediate 5% budget reduction under that proposal. I guess I'm struggling with that part of it. A school would have to grow enrollment by 5% to maintain budget.

BCG Disciple said:

---

aTmAg said:

---

Take the current education budget per year, divide it by the number of school age kids, then mail a check to each school for that amount multiplied by the number of students they have enrolled.

The math is not that hard. I don't understand the confusion.

---

Assume 5% of kids go to private school. A good school that does not have any issues would have an immediate 5% budget reduction under that proposal. I guess I'm struggling with that part of it. A school would have to grow enrollment by 5% to maintain budget.

---

If a school loses 5% of their students, then they shouldn't need that 5% of funding. They would lose their bottom 5% of teachers and other staff, spend 5% less on supplies, and so forth. And I can see schools leasing unused classrooms to other private schools/teachers. That a building/wing/hallway would be "owned" by a private school. So the building would be fully utilized, but by multiple providers.

And people will tend to not leave good schools for private schools, they would leave bad schools for private ones. And we would want those bad schools to lose funding as they are failing. Just like we want bad grocery stores, auto mechanics, etc. to lose funding and go out of business. Then those store fronts and resources could be bought by people who can run them better.

aTmAg said:

---

Take the current education budget per year, divide it by the number of school age kids, then mail a check to each school for that amount multiplied by the number of students they have enrolled.

The math is not that hard. I don't understand the confusion.

---

Because the allotment per child is a fraction of the money each school district spends on facilities and (mostly) payroll. Think of it like this: Every ISD has a $1 million per month operational cost that has to be paid regardless of the number of students. The allotments add another $250k monthly. If a kid takes a $10,500 voucher to attend Catholic school, the school district still has a $1 million monthly operational cost and the $250k is reduced only by $6300. Net expense to the taxpayer: $4,000.

In real numbers, the last voucher proposal stated that in the 4th year of the voucher program, the cost to the taxpayer would be NET $2.1 billion after cutting the public schools only $350 million.

I don't think any legislation can make vouchers revenue neutral. It's going to be expensive.

But! Abbott claimed on the campaign trail that following a massive $35 billion surplus to the state budget last session, Comptroller Glenn Hager estimates the next session will have a $20 billion surplus. All of that could go to property tax relief but the "conservative" approach is to instead spend it on vouchers.

sanangelo said:

---

aTmAg said:

---

Take the current education budget per year, divide it by the number of school age kids, then mail a check to each school for that amount multiplied by the number of students they have enrolled.

The math is not that hard. I don't understand the confusion.

---

Because the allotment per child is a fraction of the money each school district spends on facilities and (mostly) payroll. Think of it like this: Every ISD has a $1 million per month operational cost that has to be paid regardless of the number of students. The allotments add another $250k monthly. If a kid takes a $10,500 voucher to attend Catholic school, the school district still has a $1 million monthly operational cost and the $250k is reduced only by $6300. Net expense to the taxpayer: $4,000.

In real numbers, the last voucher proposal stated that in the 4th year of the voucher program, the cost to the taxpayer would be NET $2.1 billion after cutting the public schools only $350 million.

I don't think any legislation can make vouchers revenue neutral. It's going to be expensive.

But! Abbott claimed on the campaign trail that following a massive $35 billion surplus to the state budget last session, Comptroller Glenn Hager estimates the next session will have a $20 billion surplus. All of that could go to property tax relief but the "conservative" approach is to instead spend it on vouchers.

---

Private businesses deal with this ALL THE TIME. And yet they are still capable of executing at low cost and high quality. There is nothing special about education that makes it somehow fundamentally different. Hell private schools already deal with this. When they lose students, they don't go running to government for more money. They cut costs, and work to improve quality to get those customers back.

Just think of all schools being private. That they run just like grocery stores, auto dealerships, and everything else that gains it's revenue from customers while having to pay fixed operational costs such as rent.

aTmAg said:

---

BCG Disciple said:

---

aTmAg said:

---

Take the current education budget per year, divide it by the number of school age kids, then mail a check to each school for that amount multiplied by the number of students they have enrolled.

The math is not that hard. I don't understand the confusion.

---

Assume 5% of kids go to private school. A good school that does not have any issues would have an immediate 5% budget reduction under that proposal. I guess I'm struggling with that part of it. A school would have to grow enrollment by 5% to maintain budget.

---

If a school loses 5% of their students, then they shouldn't need that 5% of funding. They would lose their bottom 5% of teachers and other staff, spend 5% less on supplies, and so forth. And I can see schools leasing unused classrooms to other private schools/teachers. That a building/wing/hallway would be "owned" by a private school. So the building would be fully utilized, but by multiple providers.

And people will tend to not leave good schools for private schools, they would leave bad schools for private ones. And we would want those bad schools to lose funding as they are failing. Just like we want bad grocery stores, auto mechanics, etc. to lose funding and go out of business. Then those store fronts and resources could be bought by people who can run them better.

---

They don't lose any. Assume it is a good school and keeps pace, they lose 5% because that funding now has to be shared with private school kids who previously had no state funding.

BCG Disciple said:

---

aTmAg said:

---

BCG Disciple said:

---

aTmAg said:

---

Take the current education budget per year, divide it by the number of school age kids, then mail a check to each school for that amount multiplied by the number of students they have enrolled.

The math is not that hard. I don't understand the confusion.

---

Assume 5% of kids go to private school. A good school that does not have any issues would have an immediate 5% budget reduction under that proposal. I guess I'm struggling with that part of it. A school would have to grow enrollment by 5% to maintain budget.

---

If a school loses 5% of their students, then they shouldn't need that 5% of funding. They would lose their bottom 5% of teachers and other staff, spend 5% less on supplies, and so forth. And I can see schools leasing unused classrooms to other private schools/teachers. That a building/wing/hallway would be "owned" by a private school. So the building would be fully utilized, but by multiple providers.

And people will tend to not leave good schools for private schools, they would leave bad schools for private ones. And we would want those bad schools to lose funding as they are failing. Just like we want bad grocery stores, auto mechanics, etc. to lose funding and go out of business. Then those store fronts and resources could be bought by people who can run them better.

---

They don't lose any. Assume it is a good school and keeps pace, they lose 5% because that funding now has to be shared with private school kids who previously had no state funding.

---

That means the public schools have been over funded for decades. They lose 5% because they were previously being funded an amount that should have gone toward a kid whose parents were subsidizing the education of other people's children, but whose kid didn't reap any of the benefits.

My kids went to public school, and now they go to private school. What happened to the money that was being spent previously on their education? It stayed with the public school.

BCG Disciple said:

---

aTmAg said:

---

BCG Disciple said:

---

aTmAg said:

---

Take the current education budget per year, divide it by the number of school age kids, then mail a check to each school for that amount multiplied by the number of students they have enrolled.

The math is not that hard. I don't understand the confusion.

---

Assume 5% of kids go to private school. A good school that does not have any issues would have an immediate 5% budget reduction under that proposal. I guess I'm struggling with that part of it. A school would have to grow enrollment by 5% to maintain budget.

---

If a school loses 5% of their students, then they shouldn't need that 5% of funding. They would lose their bottom 5% of teachers and other staff, spend 5% less on supplies, and so forth. And I can see schools leasing unused classrooms to other private schools/teachers. That a building/wing/hallway would be "owned" by a private school. So the building would be fully utilized, but by multiple providers.

And people will tend to not leave good schools for private schools, they would leave bad schools for private ones. And we would want those bad schools to lose funding as they are failing. Just like we want bad grocery stores, auto mechanics, etc. to lose funding and go out of business. Then those store fronts and resources could be bought by people who can run them better.

---

They don't lose any. Assume it is a good school and keeps pace, they lose 5% because that funding now has to be shared with private school kids who previously had no state funding.

---

Oh, I thought you meant 5% switch from public to private school.

In that case, the schools make due with 5% less. Up until now, it's been bogus that they have been receiving tax dollars from those 5% taxpayers for nothing. Our school system wastes vast amount of money as it is.