the most cool guy said:

---

Howdy, it is me! said:

---

the most cool guy said:

---

So it's limited to 100,000 students? WTF. That's useless.

---

It's a billion dollar bill. Whatever is left after administration costs will be used for the participants. So, likely, less than 100,000.

---

It sounds like they're also going to focus on using the funds for kids moving from public to private rather than helping out parents already paying, and I saw the bull**** about focusing on "low income" families.

I'm assuming if I already have kids in private school and make $600k a year, this will do absolutely nothing to help me.

---

You poor soul. $600K/yr, and the government won't even pay for your private school? How will you survive?

How much is the voucher worth per student?

doubledog said:

---

Why do some people want to stunt the education of poor minority childern? Because that is what they are doing.

---

AgsMnn said:

---

How much is the voucher worth per student?

---

Almost double what they allot to the public school for the same child. Sounds pretty conservative and small government.

AgsMnn said:

---

How much is the voucher worth per student?

---

It's a 1 billion dollar proposal. It will serve less than 100,000 kids. Children can receive $10k if they attend an accredited private school, $11.5k if they attend an accredited private school and have a disability, or $2k for things like books and such (this is mostly targeted toward homeschoolers).

The System said:

---

AgsMnn said:

---

How much is the voucher worth per student?

---

Almost double what they allot to the public school for the same child. Sounds pretty conservative and small government.

---

https://tea.texas.gov/about-tea/government-relations-and-legal/government-relations/public-education-state-funding-transparency-may-2024.pdf

How about it's not equal to the funding prior to any increases the legislature gives the public school system. Takes just a few seconds to find.

aezmvp said:

---

The System said:

---

AgsMnn said:

---

How much is the voucher worth per student?

---

Almost double what they allot to the public school for the same child. Sounds pretty conservative and small government.

---

https://tea.texas.gov/about-tea/government-relations-and-legal/government-relations/public-education-state-funding-transparency-may-2024.pdf

How about it's not equal to the funding prior to any increases the legislature gives the public school system. Takes just a few seconds to find.

---

I think the outcry here relates to Texas spending state revenue (general fund) at a rate of $6,160, a rate that has not changed since 2019, on public school students but proposing to spend $10 or $11k for ESA program participants.

Howdy, it is me! said:

---

aezmvp said:

---

The System said:

---

AgsMnn said:

---

How much is the voucher worth per student?

---

Almost double what they allot to the public school for the same child. Sounds pretty conservative and small government.

---

https://tea.texas.gov/about-tea/government-relations-and-legal/government-relations/public-education-state-funding-transparency-may-2024.pdf

How about it's not equal to the funding prior to any increases the legislature gives the public school system. Takes just a few seconds to find.

---

I think the outcry here relates to Texas spending state revenue (general fund) at a rate of $6,160, a rate that has not changed since 2019, on public school students but proposing to spend $10 or $11k for ESA program participants.

---

Correct me if I'm wrong but that excludes funding from local taxes, which private schools don't and would not receive right? Local taxes are usually around 2/3 of an ISD's funds. Most districts I've looked at spend around $11k per student (general funds, excluding debt servicing and funds they receive for nutrition which is about 60/40 local and federal funding) and that is all sourced from taxpayers. Why is the distinction about private schools receiving X from the general fund and public schools receiving less than X from the general fund when that's only part of the discussion about funding?

Fenrir said:

---

Howdy, it is me! said:

---

aezmvp said:

---

The System said:

---

AgsMnn said:

---

How much is the voucher worth per student?

---

Almost double what they allot to the public school for the same child. Sounds pretty conservative and small government.

---

https://tea.texas.gov/about-tea/government-relations-and-legal/government-relations/public-education-state-funding-transparency-may-2024.pdf

How about it's not equal to the funding prior to any increases the legislature gives the public school system. Takes just a few seconds to find.

---

I think the outcry here relates to Texas spending state revenue (general fund) at a rate of $6,160, a rate that has not changed since 2019, on public school students but proposing to spend $10 or $11k for ESA program participants.

---

Correct me if I'm wrong but that excludes funding from local taxes, which private schools don't and would not receive right? Local taxes are usually around 2/3 of an ISD's funds. Most districts I've looked at spend around $11k per student (general funds, excluding debt servicing and funds they receive for nutrition which is about 60/40 local and federal funding) and that is all sourced from taxpayers. Why is the distinction about private schools receiving X from the general fund and public schools receiving less than X from the general fund when that's only part of the discussion about funding?

---

Yes, local property taxes cover a large portion of the funding for public schools without any of that money going to private schools but the argument is why should private entities, without the same oversight, receive more of the state revenue than a public entity. It's a fair question in my opinion. Senators tried to make people feel better by saying the program doesn't take funds out of public schools but opposition says if they can scrounge up a billion dollars from state revenue to send to private entities why not send that money to public entities first?

The issue with the local revenue that districts receive from local taxes is that the state continues to use a funding formula from pre-COVID to determine the cost of servicing students. If a district collects more revenue than the formula suggests, it is required to send some of that money back to the state. So, while public schools do benefit from local revenue, the state's failure to adjust the cost-per-student formula means many districts can't keep enough of their local funds to support their needs. This is especially problematic for rural districts, which often end up paying millions back to the state. As a result, they have little left for basic maintenance, let alone offering competitive incentives to attract and retain high-quality teachers.

tag8 said:

---

The issue with the local revenue that districts receive from local taxes is that the state continues to use a funding formula from pre-COVID to determine the cost of servicing students. If a district collects more revenue than the formula suggests, it is required to send some of that money back to the state. So, while public schools do benefit from local revenue, the state's failure to adjust the cost-per-student formula means many districts can't keep enough of their local funds to support their needs. This is especially problematic for rural districts, which often end up paying millions back to the state. As a result, they have little left for basic maintenance, let alone offering competitive incentives to attract and retain high-quality teachers.

---

And don't forget about the state's unfunded mandates…

Howdy, it is me! said:

---

Fenrir said:

---

Howdy, it is me! said:

---

aezmvp said:

---

The System said:

---

AgsMnn said:

---

How much is the voucher worth per student?

---

Almost double what they allot to the public school for the same child. Sounds pretty conservative and small government.

---

https://tea.texas.gov/about-tea/government-relations-and-legal/government-relations/public-education-state-funding-transparency-may-2024.pdf

How about it's not equal to the funding prior to any increases the legislature gives the public school system. Takes just a few seconds to find.

---

I think the outcry here relates to Texas spending state revenue (general fund) at a rate of $6,160, a rate that has not changed since 2019, on public school students but proposing to spend $10 or $11k for ESA program participants.

---

Correct me if I'm wrong but that excludes funding from local taxes, which private schools don't and would not receive right? Local taxes are usually around 2/3 of an ISD's funds. Most districts I've looked at spend around $11k per student (general funds, excluding debt servicing and funds they receive for nutrition which is about 60/40 local and federal funding) and that is all sourced from taxpayers. Why is the distinction about private schools receiving X from the general fund and public schools receiving less than X from the general fund when that's only part of the discussion about funding?

---

Yes, local property taxes cover a large portion of the funding for public schools without any of that money going to private schools but the argument is why should private entities, without the same oversight, receive more of the state revenue than a public entity. It's a fair question in my opinion. Senators tried to make people feel better by saying the program doesn't take funds out of public schools but opposition says if they can scrounge up a billion dollars from state revenue to send to private entities why not send that money to public entities first?

---

It's splitting hairs to defend indefensible results. The goal is not to fund a jobs program and the public system. The goal is to educate children. The goal of too many people involved is the jobs and continuing infrastructure program. And a large number of our metro ISDs are so large as to be functionally unaccountable. Those are significant problems that won't be addressed without tying 100% of the funds to the kid. I get there are a lot of entrenched interests but if the job is to best educate the kid then the money follows the kid. Right now the only focus is the ADA.

I have a senior graduating from a "good" school district. He's in normal classes because his goal is to be an electrician and own a business. His girlfriend is in honors and IB classes. I help them both with their homework frequently. The level required is a joke. There is almost no homework, everything is a hand out, the expectations are laughable and the super intendent, across multiple conversations, doesn't care.

Our current level of public schooling is completely inadequate and reforms will not take place because there is no incentive to improve just good enough. Real competition for those students and dollars will force the administrations to focus on results and improving instruction and not passing a bond to pay for more goodies.

Our ISD serves about 50,000 households and tried to pass a nearly billion dollar series of bonds in the last election. Scandalous. People are sick of it and this bill should be laser focused on putting all kids into the best situation possible. It sadly isn't.

Howdy, it is me! said:

---

Fenrir said:

---

Howdy, it is me! said:

---

aezmvp said:

---

The System said:

---

AgsMnn said:

---

How much is the voucher worth per student?

---

Almost double what they allot to the public school for the same child. Sounds pretty conservative and small government.

---

https://tea.texas.gov/about-tea/government-relations-and-legal/government-relations/public-education-state-funding-transparency-may-2024.pdf

How about it's not equal to the funding prior to any increases the legislature gives the public school system. Takes just a few seconds to find.

---

I think the outcry here relates to Texas spending state revenue (general fund) at a rate of $6,160, a rate that has not changed since 2019, on public school students but proposing to spend $10 or $11k for ESA program participants.

---

Correct me if I'm wrong but that excludes funding from local taxes, which private schools don't and would not receive right? Local taxes are usually around 2/3 of an ISD's funds. Most districts I've looked at spend around $11k per student (general funds, excluding debt servicing and funds they receive for nutrition which is about 60/40 local and federal funding) and that is all sourced from taxpayers. Why is the distinction about private schools receiving X from the general fund and public schools receiving less than X from the general fund when that's only part of the discussion about funding?

---

Yes, local property taxes cover a large portion of the funding for public schools without any of that money going to private schools but the argument is why should private entities, without the same oversight, receive more of the state revenue than a public entity. It's a fair question in my opinion. Senators tried to make people feel better by saying the program doesn't take funds out of public schools but opposition says if they can scrounge up a billion dollars from state revenue to send to private entities why not send that money to public entities first?

---

I think omitting that the vast majority of ISD funding comes from local taxes and essentially acting like private schools are suddenly going to get more taxpayer money than public schools should the proposed voucher system be passed is dishonest at best.

tag8 said:

---

The issue with the local revenue that districts receive from local taxes is that the state continues to use a funding formula from pre-COVID to determine the cost of servicing students. If a district collects more revenue than the formula suggests, it is required to send some of that money back to the state. So, while public schools do benefit from local revenue, the state's failure to adjust the cost-per-student formula means many districts can't keep enough of their local funds to support their needs. This is especially problematic for rural districts, which often end up paying millions back to the state. As a result, they have little left for basic maintenance, let alone offering competitive incentives to attract and retain high-quality teachers.

---

One could argue that public entities have gotten used to spending whatever they feel like on facilities and then once purse strings no longer expand infinitely are somehow surprised that expensive buildings cost a lot to maintain.

Fenrir said:

---

tag8 said:

---

The issue with the local revenue that districts receive from local taxes is that the state continues to use a funding formula from pre-COVID to determine the cost of servicing students. If a district collects more revenue than the formula suggests, it is required to send some of that money back to the state. So, while public schools do benefit from local revenue, the state's failure to adjust the cost-per-student formula means many districts can't keep enough of their local funds to support their needs. This is especially problematic for rural districts, which often end up paying millions back to the state. As a result, they have little left for basic maintenance, let alone offering competitive incentives to attract and retain high-quality teachers.

---

One could argue that public entities have gotten used to spending whatever they feel like on facilities and then once purse strings no longer expand infinitely are somehow surprised that expensive buildings cost a lot to maintain.

---

Maybe we should go back to one room school houses, or bare bones. Was just reading with my child about the Weedpatch school - pretty amazing.

Howdy, it is me! said:

---

Fenrir said:

---

tag8 said:

---

The issue with the local revenue that districts receive from local taxes is that the state continues to use a funding formula from pre-COVID to determine the cost of servicing students. If a district collects more revenue than the formula suggests, it is required to send some of that money back to the state. So, while public schools do benefit from local revenue, the state's failure to adjust the cost-per-student formula means many districts can't keep enough of their local funds to support their needs. This is especially problematic for rural districts, which often end up paying millions back to the state. As a result, they have little left for basic maintenance, let alone offering competitive incentives to attract and retain high-quality teachers.

---

One could argue that public entities have gotten used to spending whatever they feel like on facilities and then once purse strings no longer expand infinitely are somehow surprised that expensive buildings cost a lot to maintain.

---

Maybe we should go back to one room school houses, or bare bones. Was just reading with my child about the Weedpatch school - pretty amazing.

---

True, there is no middle ground between what the typical public K-12 building is constructed out of these days and what was constructed in 1905. If we aren't putting terrazzo flooring in these schools I don't know how those kids will possibly learn in their biology class. I will have to concede that point...

Howdy, it is me! said:

---

Fenrir said:

---

tag8 said:

---

The issue with the local revenue that districts receive from local taxes is that the state continues to use a funding formula from pre-COVID to determine the cost of servicing students. If a district collects more revenue than the formula suggests, it is required to send some of that money back to the state. So, while public schools do benefit from local revenue, the state's failure to adjust the cost-per-student formula means many districts can't keep enough of their local funds to support their needs. This is especially problematic for rural districts, which often end up paying millions back to the state. As a result, they have little left for basic maintenance, let alone offering competitive incentives to attract and retain high-quality teachers.

---

One could argue that public entities have gotten used to spending whatever they feel like on facilities and then once purse strings no longer expand infinitely are somehow surprised that expensive buildings cost a lot to maintain.

---

Maybe we should go back to one room school houses, or bare bones. Was just reading with my child about the Weedpatch school - pretty amazing.

---

Our supposedly dirt poor school district finally got a bond passed after three tries. New Jr Hi-- building looks good and so does the little stadium they slipped in there and separate practice field. The High school indoor practice facility looks like the astrodome. But its for the kids.....

Now, I wonder if I would get run out of town if I ran a crusade asking " Now, that we have state of the art facilities, will test scores go up and behavior be better?"

And with that note, Private schools: Dont accept guvmint money. Your school will never be the same!!

Schools have been able to pay teachers a competitive wage in part by utilizing bond money. Traditionally used for constructing buildings, bond funds are now also allocated for technology and other expenses that were previously covered by the regular budget.

Whenever possible, districts shift costs to bond funding to free up money for teacher salaries. This is crucial because without quality teachers, the entire education system struggles.

Many people may not realize how underfunded public education is in Texas compared to the rest of the country. Texas ranks in the 40s for per-student spending.

To reach the national average in per-student funding, Texas would need to invest an additional $45 billion in education.

To address inflation, the state would need to allocate $20 billion more (a need that remains unmet due to the failure of voucher legislation two years ago).

Finally, to raise teacher salaries by $10,000bringing them in line with the national averageTexas would need to invest $9 billion.

Tom Fox said:

---

the most cool guy said:

---

Howdy, it is me! said:

---

the most cool guy said:

---

Howdy, it is me! said:

---

the most cool guy said:

---

So it's limited to 100,000 students? WTF. That's useless.

---

It's a billion dollar bill. Whatever is left after administration costs will be used for the participants. So, likely, less than 100,000.

---

It sounds like they're also going to focus on using the funds for kids moving from public to private rather than helping out parents already paying, and I saw the bull**** about focusing on "low income" families.

I'm assuming if I already have kids in private school and make $600k a year, this will do absolutely nothing to help me.

---

Unless you're one of the lucky lottery winners in the 20%.

---

What a ****ing joke.

"We're going to give you back some of your money we stole through our criminal property tax system so you can choose where your kids go to school. But only for 1.8% of you, and only if you don't make too much money, and only if you win a lottery." Complete ****ing joke.

---

As I have said for the past couple of years, this is nothing more than a new entitlement.

Now we get the privilege of competing against our own tax dollars.

---

this guy gets it...it'll impact you whether you use a voucher or not...even if your private school doesn't accept vouchers...it'll drive the cost of private schools up because you have govt dumping stupid money on the market. the only way it works is if there are no strings attached...which would probably have to come in the form of a property tax credit.

Bingo.

On that note, can those of us who no longer have kids in school get some money back too? Lol.

For the record, I'm against vouchers. They're just another pathetic bandaid for a culture that refuses to stop having sex outside of marriage.

The more they "workshop" vouchers the worse it becomes and the more I hate it.

What started as we need school choice for parents to move their kids other districts and avoid bad ones turned into the state needs to subsidize private schools that retain the right to refuse service to students that may choose to attend there.

Now it's "give vouchers worth double what we will spend on your neighbor's kid".

Let districts choose to open up and accept enrollment (or opt out) and let the state dollars follow the student. After we accomplish this we can discuss private schools that are willing to open up enrollment can reach the earmarked funds for the student as payment for tuition. But they must be held to some minimal standards that are set out by the state.

fightingfarmer09 said:

---

The more they "workshop" vouchers the worse it becomes and the more I hate it.

What started as we need school choice for parents to move their kids other districts and avoid bad ones turned into the state needs to subsidize private schools that retain the right to refuse service to students that may choose to attend there.

Now it's "give vouchers worth double what we will spend on your neighbor's kid".

Let districts choose to open up and accept enrollment (or opt out) and let the state dollars follow the student. After we accomplish this we can discuss private schools that are willing to open up enrollment can reach the earmarked funds for the student as payment for tuition. But they must be held to some minimal standards that are set out by the state.

---

I've never understood why the first step hasn't been choice among public schools. Makes zero sense to me.

Howdy, it is me! said:

---

fightingfarmer09 said:

---

The more they "workshop" vouchers the worse it becomes and the more I hate it.

What started as we need school choice for parents to move their kids other districts and avoid bad ones turned into the state needs to subsidize private schools that retain the right to refuse service to students that may choose to attend there.

Now it's "give vouchers worth double what we will spend on your neighbor's kid".

Let districts choose to open up and accept enrollment (or opt out) and let the state dollars follow the student. After we accomplish this we can discuss private schools that are willing to open up enrollment can reach the earmarked funds for the student as payment for tuition. But they must be held to some minimal standards that are set out by the state.

---

I've never understood why the first step hasn't been choice among public schools. Makes zero sense to me.

---

It's because the vast amount of people pushing vouchers, don't have kids in the public school system. Their kids are already in private school and they'd like you to subsidize the kids' private school tuition with zero strings attached an no accountability.

This.

One of the big misunderstandings is schools struggle to educate students because they are public. That's generally not true and just a knee jerk reaction from conservatives who are trained to think that way. Public schools struggle, fail, whatever you want to call it because they are over regulated and act as monopolies.
Our Universities are the best in the world and they are generally public but are forced to compete for students and staff.

Want to fix schools? Open enrollment and let schools compete for students. That and let teachers compete for better jobs at higher pay. Do that and 90% of the problems are solved.

Chetos said:

---

Tom Fox said:

---

the most cool guy said:

---

Howdy, it is me! said:

---

the most cool guy said:

---

Howdy, it is me! said:

---

the most cool guy said:

---

So it's limited to 100,000 students? WTF. That's useless.

---

It's a billion dollar bill. Whatever is left after administration costs will be used for the participants. So, likely, less than 100,000.

---

It sounds like they're also going to focus on using the funds for kids moving from public to private rather than helping out parents already paying, and I saw the bull**** about focusing on "low income" families.

I'm assuming if I already have kids in private school and make $600k a year, this will do absolutely nothing to help me.

---

Unless you're one of the lucky lottery winners in the 20%.

---

What a ****ing joke.


"We're going to give you back some of your money we stole through our criminal property tax system so you can choose where your kids go to school. But only for 1.8% of you, and only if you don't make too much money, and only if you win a lottery." Complete ****ing joke.

---

As I have said for the past couple of years, this is nothing more than a new entitlement.

Now we get the privilege of competing against our own tax dollars.

---

this guy gets it...it'll impact you whether you use a voucher or not...even if your private school doesn't accept vouchers...it'll drive the cost of private schools up because you have govt dumping stupid money on the market. the only way it works is if there are no strings attached...which would probably have to come in the form of a property tax credit.

---

Yes! Poor kids are not going to show up at a private school with voucher in hand( unless they can play good football and have been recruited with a shrug and a wink)and go to that private school.
This is for folks whose kid is already there!

agsalaska said:

---

This.

One of the big misunderstandings is schools struggle to educate students because they are public. That's generally not true and just a knee jerk reaction from conservatives who are trained to think that way. Public schools struggle, fail, whatever you want to call it because they are over regulated and act as monopolies.
Our Universities are the best in the world and they are generally public but are forced to compete for students and staff.

Want to fix schools? Open enrollment and let schools compete for students. That and let teachers compete for better jobs at higher pay. Do that and 90% of the problems are solved.

---

My brother teaches at a rural 3A school. Good academics, good athletics across the board, and just a quality Texas experience.

If they keep open enrollment like they have now tons of kids fleeing Houston will continue to drive their growth into 4a and 5a demands without the tax base. So they had to close their enrollment to keep the size smaller. But that means those kids just outside of the district can no longer attend and have to go to some poorer rural districts again.

Pass a voucher program that allows the good Texas districts to allow students to apply to get in, but allow the district to make those decisions themselves and get the funding to do it the right way.

fightingfarmer09 said:

---

agsalaska said:

---

This.

One of the big misunderstandings is schools struggle to educate students because they are public. That's generally not true and just a knee jerk reaction from conservatives who are trained to think that way. Public schools struggle, fail, whatever you want to call it because they are over regulated and act as monopolies.
Our Universities are the best in the world and they are generally public but are forced to compete for students and staff.

Want to fix schools? Open enrollment and let schools compete for students. That and let teachers compete for better jobs at higher pay. Do that and 90% of the problems are solved.

---

My brother teaches at a rural 3A school. Good academics, good athletics across the board, and just a quality Texas experience.

If they keep open enrollment like they have now tons of kids fleeing Houston will continue to drive their growth into 4a and 5a demands without the tax base. So they had to close their enrollment to keep the size smaller. But that means those kids just outside of the district can no longer attend and have to go to some poorer rural districts again.

Pass a voucher program that allows the good Texas districts to allow students to apply to get in, but allow the district to make those decisions themselves and get the funding to do it the right way.

---

Agree! But lawyers looking for payday would jump all over this because some turd wasn't allowed in. Media would smear those fine fine folks and their schools. Most school boards and Superintendents don't want to fight those battles- and really they shouldn't. Can't wait until private schools who accept vouchers and turn others down end up in court.

Did any of you ever take economics? Doesn't seem like it. No one has said no public school is good or it can't be good. There are exceptions to the rule. But public institutions don't have the same incentives as private. And those incentives have very little to do with performance which means that in order to be a good school, they have to fight against those incentives every day. That doesn't mean that some public schools aren't good, it just makes them more and more unlikely. It also doesn't make private schools better, either. They just have different market pressures and incentives, which makes them more likely to be better over time.

Private markets are like the house at a casino, they will always out perform over time. That doesn't mean someone won't win, or have a winning streak, but they will always do better than you eventually given the numbers.

Phatbob said:

---

Did any of you ever take economics? Doesn't seem like it. No one has said no public school is good or it can't be good. There are exceptions to the rule. But public institutions don't have the same incentives as private. And those incentives have very little to do with performance which means that in order to be a good school, they have to fight against those incentives every day. That doesn't mean that some public schools aren't good, it just makes them more and more unlikely. It also doesn't make private schools better, either. They just have different market pressures and incentives, which makes them more likely to be better over time.

Private markets are like the house at a casino, they will always out perform over time. That doesn't mean someone won't win, or have a winning streak, but they will always do better than you eventually given the numbers.

---

Exactly why the various draft Texas laws on this are so bad. Need to keep govt grubby hands off private school funding. All the "strings attached" could enable government to ruin private schools too. There are no "free" govt handouts.

It's still better than without it. The government controls make it less effective than it would without them, but it's still introducing more market forces into the equation. Get what you can for now, but at least make the baseline be "education is a marketplace". That is a great starting point for the next round of fixes rather than starting from "education is a government monopoly".

Chetos said:

---

Phatbob said:

---

Did any of you ever take economics? Doesn't seem like it. No one has said no public school is good or it can't be good. There are exceptions to the rule. But public institutions don't have the same incentives as private. And those incentives have very little to do with performance which means that in order to be a good school, they have to fight against those incentives every day. That doesn't mean that some public schools aren't good, it just makes them more and more unlikely. It also doesn't make private schools better, either. They just have different market pressures and incentives, which makes them more likely to be better over time.

Private markets are like the house at a casino, they will always out perform over time. That doesn't mean someone won't win, or have a winning streak, but they will always do better than you eventually given the numbers.

---

Exactly why the various draft Texas laws on this are so bad. Need to keep govt grubby hands off private school funding. All the "strings attached" could enable government to ruin private schools too. There are no "free" govt handouts.

---

Exactly why I'm not in favor of a direct transfer of funds from the state to private schools. Even if it doesn't start out that way, once they get their hooks in the state will absolutely try to assert control over them. I'd much rather a system where local taxpayers are allowed to keep their assessed school taxes if their kids go to a private school. Would result in less money for the taxpayer in the vast majority of cases but keeps the government at arms length and would not be as likely to impact private school pricing levels.

Owlagdad said:

---

fightingfarmer09 said:

---

agsalaska said:

---

This.

One of the big misunderstandings is schools struggle to educate students because they are public. That's generally not true and just a knee jerk reaction from conservatives who are trained to think that way. Public schools struggle, fail, whatever you want to call it because they are over regulated and act as monopolies.
Our Universities are the best in the world and they are generally public but are forced to compete for students and staff.

Want to fix schools? Open enrollment and let schools compete for students. That and let teachers compete for better jobs at higher pay. Do that and 90% of the problems are solved.

---

My brother teaches at a rural 3A school. Good academics, good athletics across the board, and just a quality Texas experience.

If they keep open enrollment like they have now tons of kids fleeing Houston will continue to drive their growth into 4a and 5a demands without the tax base. So they had to close their enrollment to keep the size smaller. But that means those kids just outside of the district can no longer attend and have to go to some poorer rural districts again.

Pass a voucher program that allows the good Texas districts to allow students to apply to get in, but allow the district to make those decisions themselves and get the funding to do it the right way.

---

Agree! But lawyers looking for payday would jump all over this because some turd wasn't allowed in. Media would smear those fine fine folks and their schools. Most school boards and Superintendents don't want to fight those battles- and really they shouldn't. Can't wait until private schools who accept vouchers and turn others down end up in court.

---

Ah! But now you've identified the TRUE crux of the issue. Public school quality is most frequently hamstrung by turds and their turd parents who soak up time and resources while negatively impacting the ability of educators to do their job. You put all those turds in a private school or otherwise high performing public school and suddenly the institution will begin to eerily resemble the much maligned low performing school that they originated from.

None of this addresses the issue, apart from facilitating a means by which some folks can isolate their children from the "turd effect" as much as possible. Schools and teachers always get the blame for not finding a way to simultaneously polish turds AND serve the quality students. If you're looking for a true solution to the central issue, vouchers aren't it. Then again, I'm not sure that it's politically or societally feasible to acknowledge and address the true problem(s).

Rossticus said:

---

Owlagdad said:

---

fightingfarmer09 said:

---

agsalaska said:

---

This.

One of the big misunderstandings is schools struggle to educate students because they are public. That's generally not true and just a knee jerk reaction from conservatives who are trained to think that way. Public schools struggle, fail, whatever you want to call it because they are over regulated and act as monopolies.
Our Universities are the best in the world and they are generally public but are forced to compete for students and staff.

Want to fix schools? Open enrollment and let schools compete for students. That and let teachers compete for better jobs at higher pay. Do that and 90% of the problems are solved.

---

My brother teaches at a rural 3A school. Good academics, good athletics across the board, and just a quality Texas experience.

If they keep open enrollment like they have now tons of kids fleeing Houston will continue to drive their growth into 4a and 5a demands without the tax base. So they had to close their enrollment to keep the size smaller. But that means those kids just outside of the district can no longer attend and have to go to some poorer rural districts again.

Pass a voucher program that allows the good Texas districts to allow students to apply to get in, but allow the district to make those decisions themselves and get the funding to do it the right way.

---

Agree! But lawyers looking for payday would jump all over this because some turd wasn't allowed in. Media would smear those fine fine folks and their schools. Most school boards and Superintendents don't want to fight those battles- and really they shouldn't. Can't wait until private schools who accept vouchers and turn others down end up in court.

---

Ah! But now you've identified the TRUE crux of the issue. Public school quality is most frequently hamstrung by turds and their turd parents who soak up time and resources while negatively impacting the ability of educators to do their job. You put all those turds in a private school or otherwise high performing public school and suddenly the institution will begin to eerily resemble the much maligned low performing school that they originated from.

None of this addresses the issue, apart from facilitating a means by which some folks can isolate their children from the "turd effect" as much as possible. Schools and teachers always get the blame for not finding a way to simultaneously polish turds AND serve the quality students. If you're looking for a true solution the central issue, vouchers aren't it. Then again, I'm not sure that it's politically or societally feasible to acknowledge and address the true problem(s).

---

The people that are fleeing the "turd effect"
have already left (love the term). This does nothing to help those that remained but artificially inflate the tuition making it harder from those deserving to get into a private school.

No proposal I have seen is worth even a vote, let alone support.

Radical idea, create a draft/trade system. If Catholic High wants the voucher for little Johnny then they have to take the voucher for little Tyrone. The amount of vouchers a school can receive is calculated based on a % of their enrollment that is in designated categories.

For every voucher they accept they have to take on a SPED designated kid. These are the vulnerable of the community that need better schools.