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.
Free...schmee..
Approximately half of my significant property tax goes to support the local school corp.
The threshold is not as invasive as the mindset. I cannot agree with this school choice concept. I enjoyed your debate with crazed and both have made valid points.
However, I personally object to the idea that people’s taxes should be allocated based on their choice vs to the public district their house resides. In other words, you have every right to send your kids to a private school and you can do so from anywhere. boundaries don’t matter. If you choose to live in a high property tax area and still send your kids to private school, go for it. But that doesn’t give you the right to complain about a rather logical system.
In Minnesota, they have open enrollment, which was foreign to me when I moved up here. I am vehemently opposed to the idea based on the fact that the parents of those kids aren’t contributing financially to the school district and community and often aren’t part of and don’t care about the community.
LOL at Randi Weingarten worrying about "student achievement."
Great points. My mother graduated from Evansville Central. She would have appreciated Dwenger a lot.
I think if religious schools receive public funds, then they should be paying taxes along with the church running the school.
outside shooter hit the nail on the head. kids going to private schools with vouchers of our tax dollars is leading to neglect of public schools. Less funds will lead to programs being cut at public schools, which will lead to a bigger exodus. Or an even more subpar education for those that can't afford private school.
Public schools used to mean public funding. Private school equaled private funding. Now we are just going back to segregating schools for the haves and have nots.
Last edited:
The money is unaccountable. Once it hits the school, there are no receipts. There should be transparency.
All true. Plus these private schools are not equipped with what comes with an abundance of low income families. They can handle a few, but not what's coming for them.
They can accept or reject who they want. So don't expect a lot of wealthy private schools to be overrun
I wonder how accurate that is.
To your point, I would assume that public schools often provide more services for kids with special needs based on taxpayer funding, which supports professionals with specific skills to assist these students. However, for the kids more on the fringe (think ADHD), smaller class sizes and private school attention might be beneficial. A major challenge with public schools is class size, IMO. I wish there were a way to address this other than compensation, but I'm unsure how you do it.
@zeke4ahs any thoughts?
It will become harder and harder for public schools to provide those services if more and more of their funds get directed to private schools
If they are taking public taxpayer money, should they be allowed to reject anyone?
But if more money gets directed to private schools, maybe a stipulation should be to provide enhanced or increased services for individuals who needs increased care.
Either way, there needs to be a reduction in administrative costs and a reallocation to teachers throughout public schooling.
There is really only one "rich" school here, and they contact me trying to get my kids to enroll. So if they are contacting me, i am not sure what their academic standards are anymore. Everything else is either lutheran or catholic.
Private schools can also expel voucher kids, and i am pretty sure they keep the money. I don't think that is typical, but i do know it happens.
The tipping point why we left is b/c my kid is dyslexic and the school was helpless and as useful as tits on a nun. No offense to private school teachers, but they are not trained nor have the resources to handle more than a few behaviorally challenged kids. At least from my experience
I think this is a huge issue. Public schools have classes of what we would think of as traditional special education kids. However, they now have other classes for behavioral kids. These classes take additional resources including staff. The behavioral classes continue to see increasing enrollment. If private schools, who are now receiving funds that would have previously went to public schools, simply refuse to take those students, public schools are disadvantaged.
As I recall, this was part of the rationale behind the vouchers being limited to 90% of the state’s per student allocation.
Is there a good argument why they shouldn’t?
Private colleges take public money and reject applicants. Doctors take it public insurance and reject new patients.
Why should the acceptance of public funds -- for anything, really — obligate somebody to take on an unlimited number of applicants?
Doesn’t the fact that public schools have to take the kids undermine this argument? Public K-12 can’t reject kids. There isn’t some application process.
Undermine what argument?
I was asking the question why a private entity accepting public funds should be obligated to accept anybody who applies.
Saying “because public schools do” doesn’t feel like a very compelling answer to me.
I guess when we are funding as if they are public schools they should have the same requirements. I would not have said that if the program had remained as it started. However, now that the income limits are gone, I think the calculus has changed. The money going to private schools is coming straight from the public schools budget.
I also think K-12 is fundamentally different than the examples you give. A public university can deny applicants, just like a private university that also gets public funds. The public K-12s can’t do that.
If a private school is taking public money then they should get treated like a public school
I can only speak for one private school in the state. But what happened at our school was the exact opposite. Our school has more lower income students than it used to have.
And that makes sense. In the past, they could only afford to go there if they got private financial assistance - which was always very limited.
And as far as I know, they haven’t denied admission to any student that has applied.
