Regardless of your opinion on school choice, how does this align with Republicans longstanding opinion that more power should be given to states? Based on past complaining, shouldn't Republicans believe this should be left up to the states and not the feds?
Trump signs order to expand school choice
- Thread starter HurryingHoosiers
- Start date
Regardless of your opinion on school choice, how does this align with Republicans longstanding opinion that more power should be given to states? Based on past complaining, shouldn't Republicans believe this should be left up to the states and not the feds?
Agree. I support school choice - I think funding should follow the student and parents should decide the best school for their children - but I also think these types of decisions should be made at the state level.
I agree, on both counts.
I don't want the federal government involved with education much, if at all. But I'm entirely in favor of school choice.
If Trump's policy amounts to more federal control and oversight of what states do on education, then count me out. If it promotes states adopting school choice in a way that leaves the oversight with them, then I'm fine with it.
Are you talking about Indiana? They didn't add any new free cheese. The money just follows the student to whichever school they choose to attend.
Last edited:
Are there parents who pay out of pocket for the private schools in Fort Wayne? Those tuitions can be fairly expensive.
I did when my kids were there, and i would have to now if they went back (which isn't happening)
The qualifying income that allows you to get the subsidy has been increasing. The program was intended for low income families. The chart below does bother me. I think a two income family of 5 can pay their own tuition.
Choice Income Guidelines
Household Size Annual Household Income Limit¹
1 $111,444.00
2 $151,256.00
3 $191,068.00
4 $230,880.00
5 $270,692.00
6 $310,504.00
7 $350,316.00
8 $390,128.00
They're not receiving a subsidy. Upper income families pay the majority of taxes that end up subsidizing lower class families. Do you think upper income families should have to pay their tuition at public schools?
Wouldn't it be fair to say that many other parents don't share your view? If they did, they wouldn't be forking over those funds.
FWIW, I can't speak to Fort Wayne schools, public or private, very much. But I will say that I have quite a bit of respect for the Bishop Dwenger community. For one thing, I know a number of terrific people who went there who had nothing but good things to say about it. For another, they made one helluva gesture to some kids who played for Evansville Central HS after the schools played each other in the football state finals a few years ago.
Gregg Doyel wrote a story after the final game about how several of Central's players had been homeless throughout the season. The kids (I think there were 3 of them) lived in various homes throughout the school year. I think one of them was a coach. One may have been an administrator at Central. Anyway, they came from awful circumstances and persevered to not only make it to the finals, they all ended up graduating the next spring.
Anyway, after Doyel's story came out, the Bishop Dwenger people came together and did a fundraiser to benefit those 3 kids. It raised thousands of dollars. A school from all the way on the other side of the state...just because they had played each other in the state finals.
I thought that really spoke highly of them.
Let's say you have a public school and half the students leave to go to a private school.
Do you think that the costs of operating the public school is then cut in half? Do you need half the heat? Half the AC? Half the maintenance costs? A half-time principal? Half the janitorial staff?
Of course not. The parents of the remaining students then have to pay more in taxes to keep it open. Maybe not free cheese, but you need a LOT MORE cheese to educate the same number of kids, on the macro level.
I for one would also like boundaries on the private schools that receive the portable tax funding. If they are teaching that evolution (as an example) is something other than being as important to biology as the periodic table is to chemistry, I'd have a problem with it. Or teaching that the Earth is flat. Or that vaccine effectiveness is a hoax. Or that germs don't cause disease. Or that the USA was founded as Christian nation. You know, teaching shit.
I would call financial assistance a subsidy. Take two different families; family 1 is paying one price, and family 2 is paying a higher price....entirely based on income level. Again, the premise was allowing low income families to have options...i am 100% fine with that. Now, it is about helping middle to middle-upper class families...which i am not ok with.
Thanks for the response. We're just going to disagree. I don't like locking the middle class out of private schools. They pay taxes into the system and should be able to choose where to send their kids, as well. Most lose that ability if there isn't school choice.
I am father, husband, and small business owner.......i am pretty sure nobody gives a shit about my point of view!
If people want to go to a religious based school they should, but tax payers shouldn't be involved in paying for people that can pay for it themselves.
Dwenger is a tight knit group so that doesn't surprise me.
FWIW, I've long been a big advocate for school choice, but I have some sympathy for your position.
I also have some sympathy for the opposite position: which is that, if people are paying taxes for the purpose of K12 education, they should also be able to use tax dollars made available for their child's K12 education at the school of their choice...irrespective of income.
The reason I'm torn on it is that I'm ambivalent about the relationship between money spent on education and the quality of the education services paid for with that money. There's a relationship there, but I'm far from convinced that more money always and necessarily translates into better outcomes.
