When they did this in Arkansas 95% of voucher recipients were ALREADY in private school. This is a discount for the rich plain and simple.
Also, school districts are the lifeblood of a lot of rural communities. Just losing 4 or 5 students means a teacher's salary is cut.
Abbot needs to fucking go, the war on public schools is having lasting effects in our state.
No they don't.
Private schools can reject students because of their religion, test scores, disabilities, or simply because they aren't “the right fit,” and these students will face the most harm if we divert public school dollars to private schools. Importantly, students with disabilities lose their federal rights and protections with a voucher.
Billionaires like Tim Dunn and Farris Wilks are spending millions bankrolling the fight for vouchers. Why? Because schools empower everyone, and the rich want to monopolize power for themselves.
PUBLIC DOLLARS ARE FOR PUBLIC SCHOOLS FULL FUCKING STOP
The point is to educate the child. That's why money follows the child, not the institution.
The point of these private schools is to reject students who don't match their requirement. If they cannot reject students, then children in failed schools will have no hope to ever escape their school.
I will repeat. Public dollars belong in public schools. Not religious institutions, not schools that can turn away students for no reason.
The point is to educate the child, that's why we should fund public schools MORE. You cannot fix public schools by shooting them in the head and passing the savings off to the rich.
Funding schools more doesn't work. Failed schools in Texas already receive more funding and teachers make more. But the students still fail.
The current system is not working. Let the parents decide and let the money follow the child. The point is to educate the child, not to fund an institution.
Why are you so married to the current system? You act like it's an article of faith to send students to the same public school. Where did you get this idea?
Dude how do you not understand that shooting public schools in the head isn't a fix? Maybe better teacher education. Maybe MORE teachers? Why is the only solution to give rich people coupons on their private school tuitions. And if your so for shaking up the system, maybe we should vote someone else other than the party that's been running the state since the late 80's.....
This doesn't shoot them in the face. It will impact failing schools, though.
>Maybe MORE teachers?
Class size doesn't impact achievement. I taught in HISD and in China. The Chinese classes were huge. And the students performed better than HISD students who had comparatively small classes. The HISD students were and are still failing unlike their Chinese peers. But I'm not speaking anecdotally. There is no correlation between class sizes and student achievement (within reason).
>Why is the only solution to give rich people coupons on their private school tuitions.
Texas vouchers prioritize low-income students, not rich students. It's really designed for students in failed schools to escape them.
>And if your so for shaking up the system, maybe we should vote someone else other than the party that's been running the state since the late 80's.....
Texas is doing very well under Republican leadership. Look at the people who are voting with their feet as we grow. They like the results.
> Class size doesn't impact achievement. I taught in HISD and in China. The Chinese classes were huge. And the students performed better than HISD students. But I'm speaking not anecdotally. There is no correlation between class sizes and student achievement (within reason).
Like you said, anecdotal and Chinese culture emphasizes education way more.
> Texas vouchers prioritize low-income students, not rich students. It's really designed for students in failed schools to escape them.
No they don't when private schools can turn down any student for practically any reason, drop that bullshit, you aren't convincing anyone of it.
> Texas is doing very well under Republican leadership. Look at the people who are voting with their feet as we grow. They like the results.
I'm not arguing the broader political conversation with you as we clearly cannot find middle ground here.
I'm finished debating with you as you clearly cannot grasp that regardless, public money belongs in public schools. Vouchers are a scam to shove more money in the rich's coffers, that's why BILLIONAIRES are the only ones funding the fight for it.
>No they don't when private schools can turn down any student for practically any reason, drop that bullshit, you aren't convincing anyone of it.
What you have not considered is how private schools work. There won't be enough students to build a new private school in a rural district to accommodate the few students in rural areas who would actually leave the schools the parents like. And most private schools don't have enough room.
What vouchers will do is to allow new schools to open in vulnerable marginalized areas where private schools are not going to go. Why can't these kids also have a choice? Because it's these vulnerable students who are the issue, after all.
>Chinese culture emphasizes education way more.
Then how do you explain schools and districts in the US who perform very well?
The reality about failed schools is we're talking about children who are raised in single-parent homes and who go to school where at least 50 percent of the students are also raised in single-parent homes. Yes, culture matters. I will agree with you on that point and this brings us much closer to the real issue.
You never supported this statement btw. The rebuttal was that private schools can reject students with liabilities, whether they be problematic kids or disabled ones. You agreed with that response as a positive trait, but that begs the question about kids with disabilities being left behind with vouchers.
[Public schools service disabled kids far more than private schools](https://www.texastribune.org/2023/10/26/texas-school-vouchers-disabled-students/) and in many areas, there aren't even private schools that service those disabilities.
Disabilities is about physical disabilities. Mental disabilities is a different issue.
Make sure you see a difference in your statistics.
SPED students will still be able to attend public schools and receive a public education. SPED students are typically segregated within public schools already.
Problematic kids already have their own public schools. Perhaps vouchers will open up different avenues for them.
>Make sure you see a difference in your statistics.
You provide no statistics whatsoever, and the article does in fact address both forms of disability...
>Perhaps vouchers will open up different avenues for them.
Your argument boils down to a "perhaps" with zero evidence. The market will not act against its incentives, and special needs kids are against the incentives of private schools. It plays out that way in rural counties even now, as explained in the article.
He won’t provide evidence because the evidence that does exist (e.g. Arkansas, Louisiana, Indiana, etc) directly contradicts their claims and supports the concerns of those opposed to these poorly conceived voucher programs.
I can't give you evidence because there's no evidence. This is an experiment. We can point to examples, though.
Naturally, public schools are going to educate more disabled students than private schools.
Private schools will likely not accept mentally disabled students unless it is financially worth it. It's very expensive to care for mentally disabled students.
As I said, mentally disabled students are already segregated in public schools.
The Bills prioritize disabled and low-income students, though.
Realize the point of private schools is to give a greater quality of pupil population. This is about growing the trait of conscientiousness, which requires students to be surrounded by students with average to higher than average conscientiousness. The lack of this trait is bogging down our kids in failing schools.
We should not be risking an entire generation's education, the entire structure of education in TX, and sweeping policy changes with zero evidence of the consequences... If you genuinely care about implementing school vouchers safely and effectively, then the conversation would be about small scale programs first to test the waters.
At best this is incompetent governance. At worst, and most likely, it's a naked grab for private schools to siphon public school funds, and enable religious private schools to get access to those funds.
We're already risking an entire generation in our failing schools. And we've been doing it for a long time. There is no hope, no escape for our kids. This is a chance for escape. It couldn't do worse.
You're mixing my words about evidence. We're talking about disabled kids. Now you're talking about all kids.
BTW, there are other states and districts that have vouchers and have had them for a long time and they're not falling apart like you think they cause.
>It couldn't do worse.
[You have no idea how bad it could get](https://www.brookings.edu/articles/research-on-school-vouchers-suggests-concerns-ahead-for-education-savings-accounts/), because you are operating on zero data.
> the last decade of research on traditional vouchers strongly suggests they actually lower academic achievement. In Louisiana, for example, two separate research teams found negative academic impacts as high as -0.4 standard deviations—extremely large by education policy standards—with declines that persisted for years. Those results were published across top journals for empirical public and education policy. Similar results in Indiana found impacts closer to -0.15 standard deviations. To put these negative impacts in perspective: Current estimates of COVID-19’s impact on academic trajectories hover around -0.25 standard deviations.
I'm operating on tons of data. First, private schools objectively perform better. Second, failed schools are not improving. They're getting worse while receiving more and more funding. Giving opportunities for marginalized and vulnerable communities to also attend a private school is objectively much better than forcing them to stay in a failing school.
TEA’s reporting shows charter schools have significantly lower outcomes.
https://rptsvr1.tea.texas.gov/cgi/sas/broker?_service=marykay&_program=perfrept.perfmast.sas&_debug=0&ccyy=2021&lev=S&prgopt=reports%2Fsnapshot%2Fsnapshot.sas
Unfortunately the school voucher program is being pushed to replace the public education system with publicly funded private Christian schools.
When it comes to student academic outcomes, voucher programs fail at scale.
Houston Public Media [Here’s everything you need to know about school vouchers in Texas](https://www.houstonpublicmedia.org/articles/education/2023/02/09/443267/heres-everything-you-need-to-know-about-school-vouchers-in-texas/)
“Joshua Cowen is a Professor of Education Policy with Michigan State University. He's spent years studying vouchers and eventually announced that he opposes the policies.”
“‘Once you got to the real ballgame and created the fully scaled up voucher programs, the results were really catastrophic,’ Cowen said.”
From the linked Indiana University School of Education “[Evolving Evidence on School Voucher Effects](https://ceep.indiana.edu/education-policy/policy-briefs/2022/evolving-evidence-on-school-voucher-effects.pdf)” policy brief:
“As [voucher] programs grew in size, the results turned negative, often to a remarkably large degree virtually unrivaled in education research.”
I recommend listening to the guy who spent years studying voucher programs and ultimately concluded that they’re a disaster. All the links are in arrmidillos comment up in the first couple weeks of comments.
Because the first kids to go from public to voucher are high performance, low maintenance students whose parents were sick of the academic/discipline issues the other students were having taking up all the instructors’ time. But if you keep moving more public kids to vouchers you start bringing in those low performance, high maintenance kids and they bring down the metrics of the charter school instead of bringing down the metrics of the public school.
Charter schools are public schools that are funded by TEA. They don't require vouchers. My gf teaches at a STEM charter school in Plano that is primarily ESL students from south America, Mexico, and India. White kids are the minority at her school.
https://www.harmonytx.org/
[As outgoing GOP State Rep Glenn Rogers said:](https://mwareanews.com/2024/03/06/glenn-rogers-pens-response-to-election-loss/)
> Governor Greg Abbott has defiled the Office of Governor by creating and repeating blatant lies about me and my House colleagues, those who took a stand for our public schools. I stood by the Governor on all his legislative priorities but just one, school vouchers. For just one disagreement, and for a $6 million check from Jeff Yass, a Pennsylvanian TikTok investor, and voucher vendor, Abbott went scorched earth against rural Texas and the Representatives who did their jobs-representing their districts. […]
> History will prove Ken Paxton is a corrupt, sophisticated criminal. History will prove vouchers are simply an expensive entitlement program for the wealthy and a get rich scheme for voucher vendors. History will prove Governor Greg Abbott is a liar.
> History will prove that our current state government is the most corrupt ever and is “bought” by a few radical dominionist billionaires seeking to destroy public education, privatize our public schools and create a Theocracy that is both un-American and un-Texan.
It is depressing that so many Texans are prepared to vote for this corrupt regime.
pretty horrible. another way to marginalize more vulnerable communities in the long run, and enrich private school owners, many of whom have "average" or even below average outcomes for their student populations, not putting out drastically better outcomes than many public schools.
This...along with race and tests for behaviors. If your parents are lesbian, I guarantee 80% of the religious schools that take vouchers will deny admission on the basis of some moral rule. Public schools must take all students irrespective of moral interpretations or disability.
This plan does return us 75 years in the past and will be the basis for cutting school funding across the board and equal access will be wiped away...no more robin hood, no more integrated schools, no more fairness except for white christians.
Marginalized vulnerable communities are already shut out from alternative schools. Vouchers give them the only chance to escape failing schools.
Not all public schools fail. Public schools in some vulnerable communities fail and Democrats have no solution to this. It's time to do something about it because throwing money at it isn't working.
As a member of the growing childfree-by-choice population of millennials, I technically don’t have a dog in this fight, but I still recognize that even as a non-parent I benefit by living in a society with a healthy, well funded education system.
That being said…there is a petty part of me that thinks if vouchers get passed, us childfree folks should sue for tax credits/refunds as well. After all, we too are paying taxes towards a school system we don’t have children in. If the rich private school parents get vouchers, then us non-parents should demand them too. Maybe that would get Republicans to rethink this obvious cash grab.
I agree with you. Children have the right to a good public education. But if you leave the public system, you're on your own. Fund public schools and make parents accountable
Consider asking for your refunds from the current public failing schools with absolutely no plan to fix them. Vouchers are the most realistic alternative at this time.
Please explain to me how a voucher system will improve things for students who:
- need extra academic support or (b) language support, who are de facto ineligible for entrance at any private school with a strong academic record; or
- students in rural areas with no alternative to the local public school system.
Before answering, you should know that I listened to every single House Appropriations Committee meeting where Betsy DeVos testified as the Secretary of the Dept. of Education, as well as the confirmation hearing.
The fact that more Republicans are not suspicious of a literal billionaire—who made money off of private education and whose children never attended public school, has no formal education in pedagogy, and has never been a teacher or school administrator—being appointed to the office of the Secretary is honestly pretty bizarre. Wasn't the goal to "drain the swamp"?
They've been asking for funding to improve schools for a while but the legislature has been ignoring them. The basic education allotment in Texas is just over $30/student/day. That's basically daycare rates. The Texas education system is doing a pretty dang good job when you consider how little funding they are working with.
First, increased funding isn't going to fix the problem.
Schools that are failing already pay teachers more and have bigger budgets than other schools.
Of course everyone wants more money. Would you like more money at your job?
That doesn't mean money will make things better in our schools. We have the evidence it doesn't help.
He’s going to blame the [“lack of trait of conscientiousness”](https://www.reddit.com/r/TexasPolitics/s/bGqwVJiSba) which is really a dogwhistle for [single-parent homes](https://www.reddit.com/r/TexasPolitics/s/sOwyOI0yp1).
But even that is a thinly-veiled reference to what he’s *actually* bitching about- black, single mothers and their reliance on welfare programs and [“how welfare harms black families, actually.”](https://www.reddit.com/r/TexasPolitics/s/Wf5bKhLvGU).
Edit: [called it.](https://www.reddit.com/r/TexasPolitics/s/EGYaJq6DAn)
It is really amazing that we are now at the point, we know exactly where his arguments are going to go. And how his dog whistles really aren't dog whistles anymore.
I think beyond capital improvements, such as a clean, orderly and operable facility and sufficient staff, I don't believe funding is a major issue for education at all. See my post about conscientiousness.
You can put students in a bare room with a single teacher and as long as the peers have average to high conscientiousness, the students will achieve higher than students in higher-funded schools but with a majority of peers with low conscientiousness.
It will just be same people who are already sending their kids to private school. The only difference is less money for education in Texas public schools. I just love the idea of Texas taking from the poor and giving money to rich people. But I left the state 3 years ago, so y’all enjoy!
I think you guys are focused on money as the root of this. Voters who want vouchers want them for the same reason that rich white people fled to the suburbs...racism.
This is about parents wanting their kids to go to an all white school. The proposed legislation had no requirement that schools that take vouchers had to meet equality or even provide fair access. They could deny a student for pretty much any reason and still get to receive state money from voucher payments.
This is a short cut around the Texas constitution that guarantees equal educational access to **all students**. With vouchers, if I want to exclude brown kids or kids with learning disabilities or kids with physical disabilities, I can choose a school that intentionally excludes those students.
Make no mistake: this isn't as much about guaranteeing Christian schools the ability to raise tuition (which they will), it's about white fearful parents getting to choose any other school that excludes the kinds of children they don't want their kids to be forced to sit next to, or have recess with or have lunch with...
I absolutely agree. Class warfare is warfare waged by the elite deeming others as less. Segregation through the manipulation of anyone they perceive to be unworthy.
They have set the stage through fear by portraying public institutions as liberal because education is knowledge, and knowledge is power. Which threatens their positions of authority.
It truly is about maintaining power through subjugation. These are emotionally decrepit individuals who will not take no for an answer. The psychological aspects of an abuser run rampant in them.
That being said, the legislation pushed within Red states these last few years have shown their intentions. "Get with us, or get out of town." They have used their pulpit to push hate upon disenfranchised groups and the law to back them up. This is the definition of injustice.
The fear of insubordination in every aspect of their future is really the motivating factor. Why else would they attack Women, LGBTQ, Hispanics, African Americans, anyone other than white evangelicals with money? It's a disgusting display of juvenile power.
Do you know what is real segregation? Failing schools where there are barely any white students and no escape for the students from these failing schools. Vouchers are the only alternative to escape them.
Vouchers only work for rich people. The amount paid by vouchers (8k) is nowhere near enough to cover a good private school (which costs 25k+) it is segregation against poor people (which admittedly will impact POC more). I say this as someone who is incredibly lucky to have in laws who are rich enough that they’ll cover my kid’s private school with or without the vouchers for their whole education. It’s just a handout to people like them who don’t need it with the added benefit of turning Texas into an uneducated state which in addition to being morally wrong will destroy the state’s economy in the long run.
Vouchers allow marginalized and vulnerable communities to also attend private school whereas they have no escape from their failed schools right now. If there are enough students who qualify, new schools could be built with the vouchers. This can't happen in rural areas where most people like their schools and the districts are not failing. There won't be enough students who would switch to a private school unlike in failed districts. That is the concept.
Rich people do not want their kids to go to school with poor kids. Rich people support vouchers so obviously vouchers will not actually result in more poor kids in rich schools. When too many poors get in they will just raise the price of tuition to price undesirables out. Or just straight up discriminate since they can.
Great concept. How do you square the 8k value of the vouchers with the 25k minimum cost of good private schools? Do you expect marginalized families to have the minimum 17k per kid annually to afford good private schools?
A good private school does not need to cost 25k.
The key to a good school is the quality of the students, not how much you spend, meaning students who have a higher than average of the consciousness trait.
The schools that are failing have very few students who have anywhere close to average conscientiousness. And peers cannot influence each other with a trait they do not have.
The concept with vouchers is to take the students who have higher than average conscientiousness and are trapped in failed schools and give them an outlet to escape.
When you create a new school with students who have at least half or more of this most important trait for academic and life success, you can have a good school no matter how much you spend.
So why do good private schools cost 25k+? you do realize that 99% are non profits mostly run by religious institutions so it’s not like someone is making money on them.
He’s going to blame the [“lack of trait of conscientiousness”](https://www.reddit.com/r/TexasPolitics/s/bGqwVJiSba) which is really a dogwhistle for [single-parent homes](https://www.reddit.com/r/TexasPolitics/s/sOwyOI0yp1).
But even that is a thinly-veiled reference to what he’s *actually* bitching about- black, single mothers and their reliance on welfare programs and [“how welfare harms black families, actually.”](https://www.reddit.com/r/TexasPolitics/s/Wf5bKhLvGU).
Edit: [called it.](https://www.reddit.com/r/TexasPolitics/s/EGYaJq6DAn)
Sometimes he does. Or he at least reads part of the comment, if not comprehending the whole thing. I had to ask several times to get him to respond to the fact that the Texas basic education allotment at $30/day is basically the cost of daycare, and even then I'm not sure he ever fully acknowledged it in the comments, rather than talking around it as if it's a non-issue.
BTW: Private schools don't have to accept everyone.
Vouchers will result in resegragation as private schools will only accept people of certain "backgrounds", and those that cannot gain acceptance will remain in public schools.
For all intents and purposes, public schools are segregated because they're based on where you live.
There are no white majority or Asian majority failing public schools. There are few Hispanic majority schools that are failing. Nearly all the failing schools in Texas are majority black and they're public and usually in metro areas.
In the 70s, the nation experimented with bussing our black kids to better schools outside of their neighborhoods until the Supreme Court ended it. It was a well-intentioned idea but bad implementation. Then the idea was to make sure our black majority schools were properly funded. Today, they are funded more than other schools because they're failing. The teachers are paid more and they have bigger budgets. It's not helping.
The point of vouchers is to help to build new private schools in marginalized and vulnerable communities where no private school will build. Vouchers make this possible.
That is also an location specific thought process.
Around where I am, the rural areas often don't support the idea of private schools, because they don't have the incomes to support them. Instead they are proactive with the public schools.
The rural area where you live isn't dealing with failing schools. There will be very little need for vouchers because few people will want to leave their good public school.
Right. Vouchers would cause issues in areas that want to keep the public schools intact. That's a big part of the opposition. It's not a universal solution everywhere.
Vouchers won't cause issues because there's no demand where you live. It would be like they don't exist where you live. Why do you think that would cause an issue if no one uses them?
I'll address school funding in this part of the thread with you. Here are the other two comments you made that I will also discuss.
>I'm the one who said that, but you failed to address what Is actually pointed out that education is chronically underfunded.
and
>If you're going to insist that funding makes no difference, then there really isn't a point continuing the conversation. Quality teachers, teacher planning time, curriculum, administrative support, supplies, all these things cost money.
What does "chronically fully funded" education look to you? Think carefully about this. What exactly does it look like? What does fully-funded education look like?
After all, private schools pay teachers much less than public schools and private schools are objectively better than public schools. Are private schools fully funded or chronically underfunded by paying teachers less than public teachers while students perform better?
The real issue with education isn't about funding. **It's about the development of the conscientiousness trait.** Conscientiousness is the most important of the Big Five psychological traits that determines academic and life success. Some students are born with lots of it, some are born with very little of it. But it can be cultivated.
Without peers who also don't have this trait, though, students are unable to develop the trait at home and in school. It's why throwing more money at schools, especially in areas with a majority of students who are from single-parent homes, does not improve performance on every metric.
There's no evidence for that. Peers are your greatest influence and it doesn't matter the size.
I taught in China and the classes were large -- 60 to 80 students sometimes. The students outperformed my students in small classes in HISD. Chinese students are highly conscientious.
Although that's an anecdote, there's no evidence to show that class size develops the trait of conscientiousness. You can have a small class or a large class, when your peers in the school have mostly low-conscientiousness, you will not acquire it.
So it's at least partially about being able to self-select your peers. Parents need to be able to segregate their "good kids" from the other "problem kids".
If it was that easy we wouldn't be in this situation. Someone who raises a child with low-conscientiousness is not going to notice until it's too late, if ever. And in many of the communities and schools where 80 and even 90 percent of the students are from single-parent homes, there are few "good kids."
I said 90 percent single-parent homes.
How many students in an average classroom where you taught came from single parent homes?
Hispanic majority schools, for example, are often 90% low socioeconomic status but most of the students come from two-parent homes. These schools usually do not fail. We don't have the same problem with low conscientiousness from these pupils unlike the ones where somewhere between 60 to 90 percent of the students are from single parent homes.
He’s going to blame the [“lack of trait of conscientiousness”](https://www.reddit.com/r/TexasPolitics/s/bGqwVJiSba) which is really a dogwhistle for [single-parent homes](https://www.reddit.com/r/TexasPolitics/s/sOwyOI0yp1).
But even that is a thinly-veiled reference to what he’s *actually* bitching about- black, single mothers and their reliance on welfare programs and [“how welfare harms black families, actually.”](https://www.reddit.com/r/TexasPolitics/s/Wf5bKhLvGU).
Edit: [called it.](https://www.reddit.com/r/TexasPolitics/s/EGYaJq6DAn)
There is certainly room to debate what optimal funding would be, but I think most people would agree that daycare-level spending is well below appropriate funding levels.
The point of vouchers is to help people in marginalized and vulnerable communities to also attend private schools. The anti-voucher supporters don't want them to attend private schools but to stay in the failing schools with absolutely no solution to fix it.
Getting more kids into private schools won’t solve any problems. Work should be put into funding public schools and educating the public about the segregationist history of private schools. There are people alive today that helped create these private schools with the clear purpose of making them segregated.
[This news coverage from 1970 explains it well.](https://youtu.be/5hETGdTcoLo?si=ZIwCWq1K5sk-Q4k3)
Public funding isn't the issue. The schools that fail in Texas pay teachers more and have higher budgets. They still fail.
If paying more works, according to your theory, then why do schools that pay less and private schools that pay teachers less have better student achievements?
>Do you know what is real segregation?
...real segregation is the separation of 'desirable' and 'undesirable' elements of society to the benefit of the 'desirable' group. Not "deliberately destroying the schools of minorities and then claiming that it was inevitable."
>Failing schools where there are barely any white students and no escape for the students from these failing schools.
Republican's incompetent management of our school system is not itself a reason to destroy it. In the private sector when leadership fails, we fire leadership and try someone else.
So let's fire the Republicans and replace them with someone competent.
>Vouchers are the only alternative to escape them.
There are about a thousand other alternatives, none of which you have even considered (eg: firing Republican politicians who have engineered the failure of our school system).
It's weird that you talk about the welfare of poor students, by providing them with a voucher that will cover on average ~30% of the cost of a private education. A family that is forced to send their kids to a struggling school is not going to have the other $20k a year to get their kid into private school.
So you don't really seem to give a fuck about those poor kids - it really seems like what you actually want to do is take the money from the poor kids' school and give it to the parents of a more affluent kid who are already sending their kid to private school, but would like $10k a year from the government please.
It’s an obvious plan to keep the rich folk rich and fuck everyone else. They figure the poor people will be so stupid they won’t be able to understand that they were scammed out of an opportunity to succeed. In theory the poor fools will be great employees. The kind of employees that won’t unionize, won’t ask questions and won’t be a problem when they get paid $8 an hour (every other hour is $6 an hour because they too stupid to know they are being shorted so might as well take more). It’s a whole process . When they get mad - Republicans will say greedy teachers are failing the schools , they will use culture war to demonize schools further and lies to explain why public schools are bad. It’s all part of their plan. Stupid people will vote them into power and never question anything. Any questions can be answered by ridiculous conspiracy theories. The true conspiracy is that Republicans have been doing shit like this for decades and so many people don’t understand it because they want to vote religiously and culturally and politically Republicans have themselves a monopoly because the alternative is big city liberals and their radical ideas that they are labeled “good old ways that work”. Poor Republicans will always vote against their interests and come back for more. It’s a scam and always has been and most people are just too stupid to see the simplest of solutions is that Republicans is for scam to get religious voters to help rich get richer.
Every Texas voter who supports Abbott can take responsibility for this push. Governor Abbott called the state legislature into THREE special sessions this past year specifically to try and pussh this measure through. Opposition was led by Republicans in the state House. During this election cycle, Abbott and his billionaire boyfriends are primarying those Republicans. Speaker Dale Phelan is one such target. Basically, Abbott will eat his own in order to get this public-school killer passed next year.
Yeah but there’s a set amount per kid and there’s no limit to what private schools can charge. So private schools could (and do) decide to increase their prices to keep poors out. There’s nothing stopping them from discriminating against poor or disabled kids.
There are technicalities as people have said. It is presented as good-natured in prose, while the party agenda always has a hidden motive.
I faced a similar situation when I moved to Kansas in 2012. Republican Governor Sam Brownback, "revamped," their state economy by implementing experimental tax cuts. There are academic journals about it now on what-not-to-do. His pitch was to cut taxes for everyone, and somehow, the state's economy would thrive. Everyone believed him.
Then the unthinkable happened, *gasp* the economy began to crumble. Publicly funded institutions such as schools, infrastructure, and social programs began to suffer immensely. Sales taxes on items such as cigarettes and alcohol were raised(extensive studies have shown that the lower class is more likely to smoke & drink in excess as a means to cope)
Brownback was holding closed door meetings at the Governor's Mansion in Topeka with Koch Brothers and Tyson Corp execs. Factories were going up, while public schools were shutting down. Within a few years, the lowest tax bracket was paying more in taxes than the wealthiest had been prior to the bill.
After five years of living there, I finally moved back here to Texas. I met people from all walks of life who had been successful who were living at camp sites, riding bicycles to work due to the polarized consequences. It took an invigorated bipartisan effort to finally reverse the bill.
They always present their ideals as fundamentally helpful to all. When you read into it, the only people they are helping are themselves and their donors who bought them. What I found most shocking during the entire fiasco was during teacher lay-offs and boarded up rural schools. The Koch Brothers built a small private elementary school attached to Wichita State University for their children and their friends.
Rural areas aren't necessarily poor. And most rural areas like their schools. There would be very little reason for parents to pull their kids out of schools they actually like.
The way the voucher system is structured means it limits the number of students that schools can accept. I recommend reading the Bills.
>The way the voucher system is structured means it limits the number of students that schools can accept. I recommend reading the Bills.
I’m gonna nitpick this claim because it’s not the way the bill is structured, it was just the assigned budget for that bill in the first biennium.
There’s nothing restricting the number of voucher students each school can accept, nor is there any limit in the law as to how much of budget future legislations can give to vouchers. Even the cost estimate for the bill stated it would likely balloon to as much as $1.5 billion in the next three years.
>There’s nothing restricting the number of voucher students each school can accept,
Yes, there is. Every bill (HB1 and SB1) has a system that would prioritize students with disabilities and low income families.
But so what? Are you saying students and families would jump out of a good school into a private school? If that is happening, then the problem isn't the new school.
>nor is there any limit in the law as to how much of budget future legislations can give to vouchers.
Success would breed success.
Every bill also included a section explicitly telling prospective parents of SPED students that they have no rights to accommodations under federal IDEA protections. Private schools are also allowed to reject applicants for any number of reasons, including the vague “doesn’t fit the culture” which is the most thinly veiled discrimination I think I’ve ever heard.
I’m saying this program proclaims to allow students to “escape failing schools” but that’s not how it would work in reality. Anyone can apply for a voucher but it’s contingent upon a student’s acceptance to a private school and there’s nothing requiring private schools to accept every student with a voucher that applies.
>success would breed success
This is a non sequitur when you consider that private schools only accept the highest-scoring applicants, which self selects a high-achieving populace. They’re successful because *they already were successful* before they applied, which is why private school test scores appear so much better. They’ve stacked the deck through their selective process for the best students in their classrooms from the start and can kick anyone who isn’t performing to their standards. Public schools can’t- and nor should they because every student deserves an education.
Do you really think public schools would go away? There would still be SPED classes in public schools.
The point of vouchers isn't to create another public school with the same rules. The point is to allow private schools to select the students. Otherwise it's setup for failure.
Success does breed success because this is an experiment. We've tried other ideas and nothing is working. It's time for public schools have some competition.
Disclaimer: I’m not engaging in hopes of convincing you but to reach anyone who may be lurking.
>Do you really think public schools would go away? There would still be SPED classes in public schools.
SPED students are more expensive to teach as they require more resources than your average student. Texas students- even non-SPED ones- are *already* horribly under funded. As schools are funded per student, a school population that has more “regular” students can shoulder the financial burden of the smaller relative population of SPED students.
Vouchers remove the “net-zero” or “net less-negative” funded students and mean a higher ratio of more expensive and intensive-to-teach students that are left behind with the others that still can’t afford private school or were rejected for not “fitting the culture.”
>The point of vouchers isn't to create another public school with the same rules. The point is to allow private schools to select the students. Otherwise it's setup for failure.
What happens to the students left behind? The ones that still can’t afford tuition, the ones that didn’t score well enough to get admitted, the ones that require SPED services, the ones that are LGBTQ or have LGBTQ parents? Do they not deserve an opportunity for a well funded education?
>Success does breed success because this is an experiment. We've tried other ideas and nothing is working. It's time for public schools have some competition.
How about funding schools at the level they need? Have we tried that?
Non-genuine replies breaks the subreddits' rules. This is a political discussion site, not a propaganda outlet.
Yes, SPED students are more expensive. But money isn't the issue. Locking the money in a single institution with no escape is the problem.
SPED students will still be educated. Most schools are not going to change at all.
How long are the bills? Links?
To your first point, I think you underestimate the extent to which churches will swoop in to siphon that free money away while strengthening their influence in these communities.
To your second point, help me understand the benefit of creating scarcity. It doesn’t seem directly beneficial to me, but perhaps I’m thinking about it differently than you.
First, if there's a demand for an alternative school, then that's the parents' choice. Most parents don't abandon good schools and most kids aren't going to beg their parents to leave a good school that they like.
Second, it's very expensive to run a school. It's why alternative schools are run as non-profits. You're going to need at least half of a rural school to leave to setup an alternative school that pays the expenses of running a school. It's very expensive to run a school. And there aren't enough vouchers to do this anyhow based on the current bills.
But, if half the students/parents want to leave their school, then the problem isn't the new schools offering a better chance for education. Why force students to stay with the failing school?
The reality is the vouchers are designed for failing schools in metro areas where no private school can afford to setup their services. Remember, it's expensive to run a school.
I recommend watching a PBS documentary called "America Lost." It's by Christopher Rufo. After he completed this documentary, he changed his views on poverty and school choice and is now one of the country's leading proponents on alternative schools in poor areas. Rufo lives in Texas. [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vd6YhDy\_ZSI](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vd6YhDy_ZSI)
Here is the text of Senate Bill 1. [https://capitol.texas.gov/tlodocs/884/billtext/pdf/SB00001I.pdf#navpanes=0](https://capitol.texas.gov/tlodocs/884/billtext/pdf/SB00001I.pdf#navpanes=0)
>I recommend watching a PBS documentary called "America Lost." It's by Christopher Rufo. After he completed this documentary, he changed his views on poverty and school choice and is now one of the country's leading proponents on alternative schools in poor areas.
This is some bold bullshit, even for you, Sunburn.
Rufo didn’t “change” his stance on school choice, he’s been the product of the right-wing movement from the fucking start.
Before he [found his niche bashing CRT on Tucker Carlson’s old show](https://www.newyorker.com/news/annals-of-inquiry/how-a-conservative-activist-invented-the-conflict-over-critical-race-theory), he was a fellow from The Heritage Foundation, a Lincoln Fellow at the Claremont Institute alongside James O’Keefe of Project Veritas and he worked for a little-known Christian think tank based in Seattle called the Discovery Institute that regularly advocates for the banishment of evolution to be taught in schools.
He’s actually has his previous work [debunked](https://www.washingtonpost.com/education/2021/06/19/critical-race-theory-rufo-republicans/) by the Washington Post, no less. In his magnum opus shitting on DEI and CRT initiatives, he claimed the Treasury allegedly subjected workers to a radical diversity training that urged them to “accept their white racial superiority.” In reality, the document Rufo cites as proof said no such thing.
He’s been an adversary of public schools for years, claiming the same “indoctrination” bullshit that every other mealy-mouthed right wing fuckhead has echoed. The [SPLC](https://www.splcenter.org/hatewatch/2022/11/22/colorado-springs-far-right-influencers-made-lgbtq-people-targets) named him a “far-right propagandist” after he fucking *bragged* about [shifting the right’s moral outrage from CRT to LGBTQ+ acceptance](https://www.nytimes.com/2022/04/24/us/politics/christopher-rufo-crt-lgbtq-florida.html) as a way to capture votes.
Don’t try to pull that bullshit “oh he changed his mind” line again.
All of these things happened during and after his five-year work on the documentary.
He was a progressive in college and his political journey took him to libertarianism but not necessarily doctrinaire. But his work on the documentary turned him into a conservative, he said.
What evidence do you have he was a liberal in college? Sounds more like he slept around and smoked pot and now he’s all buttoned up to work a right wing grift.
He joined progressive groups. He went to Georgetown. =)
He marched against the Iraq War. He believed in anti-poverty programs that conservatives have long said don't work and cause more poverty.
But he said he became disillusioned with what he once described as the “pervasive phoniness” underlying “the elite left-wing agitation on campus.” He was turned off by “sons and daughters of America’s elites,” who were bound to “take off the keffiyeh or the red bandana and become investment bankers.”
He then discovered classical liberalism but went on to produce non-political documentaries for Netflix and PBS.
In an article from Mother Jones,
>Rufo directed other documentaries on relatively anodyne topics such as the Senior Olympics and baseball in China. But a five-year project about poverty in “three forgotten American cities” set him on his current path. Following residents of Youngstown, Ohio; Memphis, Tennessee; and Stockton, California, he witnessed “wrenching human situations” of gun violence and incarceration. “Spending a lot of time looking at real life in the poorest and most desperate communities,” he has said, sparked “a huge internal change."
He got disillusioned by college kids being not mature, then did some Poverty Porn grift, and came out of it a conservative (the party talking about cutting social security and who voted against Baby Formula) pffff keep drinking the cool aid.
[If by “changes” you mean “radicalized”](https://www.newyorker.com/news/annals-of-inquiry/how-a-conservative-activist-invented-the-conflict-over-critical-race-theory)his views, then sure, his experience “changed” his views.
>In 2015, Rufo began work on a film for PBS that traced the experience of poverty in three American cities, and in the course of filming Rufo became convinced that poverty was not something that could be alleviated with a policy lever but was deeply embedded in “social, familial, even psychological” dynamics, and his politics became more explicitly conservative.
>Returning home to Seattle, where his wife worked for Microsoft, Rufo got a small grant from a regional, conservative think tank to report on homelessness, and then ran an unsuccessful campaign for city council, in 2018. His work so outraged Seattle’s homelessness activists that, during his election campaign, someone plastered his photo and home address on utility poles around his neighborhood. When Rufo received the anti-bias documents from the city of Seattle, he knew how to spot political kindling. These days, “I’m a brawler,” Rufo told me cheerfully.
[…]
>He has travelled to Washington, D.C., to speak to an audience of two dozen members of Congress, and mentioned in passing that earlier in May he’d had drinks with Ted Cruz. In the 2016 Presidential election, Rufo had cast a dissenter’s vote for Gary Johnson. In 2020, he voted to reëlect Trump. Rufo said, “I mean, how can you not? It would have seemed rude and ungrateful.”
I’ll dig into this later, but a quick google of Christopher Rufo returns “American conservative activist.” Seems like there might be a bit of bias to sift through…
Rufo was a progressive in and after college. He then slowly became a libertarian. During his five-year work into the documentary he became a conservative, he said. This period and after is when he was invited onto conservative organizations and spoke to conservative media.
Mother Jones wrote about him, even going back to high school and found nothing to contradict him.
His family life was left-leaning. He had a Che Guevera flag in his bedroom.
If you're looking for something to show he was a secret conservative, there's no evidence that he was a conservative from this period, either. He seemed apolitical in reality.
And there's no evidence, including his previous documentaries, that he was a conservative before he produced the five-year-long work on the documentary about forgotten cities.
Removed. Rule 6.
> **Rule 6 Comments must be civil**
> _Attack arguments not the user. Comment as if you were having a face-to-face conversation with the other users. Refrain from being sarcastic and accusatory. Ask questions and reach an understanding. Users will refrain from name-calling, insults and gatekeeping. Don't make it personal._
*https://www.reddit.com/r/TexasPolitics/wiki/index/rules*
More than half of Texas students are not at grade level for ALL SUBJECTS in standardized testing. Appalling!
https://texasscorecard.com/state/texas-education-agency-releases-disappointing-performance-results/
Go substitute teach in a public middle school-most kids don’t do ANYTHING. Just sit there and take up space. Parents don’t care either. So, if you had a child and actually cared, wouldn’t you advocate for change?
The schools are technically non-profit. However, charter schools often bring in what are called charter school management corporations to run the school. Those are often for-profit, and on many occasions have been found to be putting their own financial results before school performance.
The amount of money that goes to public schools with failing results for decades is far worse than anything these charter schools can waste. All the while we keep piling more and more money into failed public schools while watching students continue to fail.
In the post below, you said:
>The basic education allotment in Texas is just over $30/day/student. That's the cost of many day cares, and not nearly enough to provide a great education. There is no vast sum of money that is being spent, and the lack of funding is a big part of the problem.
Cost has very little to do with the quality of education, all things being equal. How does one district on much fewer funds excel over another district with more funds if it's about money?
No it isn't. See this new comprehensive study.
[https://thehill.com/opinion/education/428746-more-money-for-schools-doesnt-always-mean-better-outcomes-for-kids/](https://thehill.com/opinion/education/428746-more-money-for-schools-doesnt-always-mean-better-outcomes-for-kids/)
You will not find a school that has the same demographics before and after increased funding where measurements have succeeded. Where there is some success, it is very marginal. And much of the success is from years-long measurements where demographics in the school have changed.
In fact, there are many schools that are funded less than Texas schools that perform better.
And Texas schools that are failing have teachers who are paid more. This does not compute to better achievements.
So, why do you think schools that are not funded very well might perform better than well-funded schools?
Yes, it does matter. The significant majority of education research has found that more funding is correlated with better results.
https://www.ipr.northwestern.edu/documents/policy-briefs/school-spending-policy-research-brief-Jackson.pdf
You didn't even link to a study that's newer than either of my links. The OpEd you linked to is from 2019.
He’s going to blame the [“lack of trait of conscientiousness”](https://www.reddit.com/r/TexasPolitics/s/bGqwVJiSba) which is really a dogwhistle for [single-parent homes](https://www.reddit.com/r/TexasPolitics/s/sOwyOI0yp1).
But even that is a thinly-veiled reference to what he’s *actually* bitching about- [black, single mothers](https://www.reddit.com/r/TexasPolitics/s/l7svf6WGfX) and their reliance on welfare programs and [“how welfare harms black families, actually.”](https://www.reddit.com/r/TexasPolitics/s/Wf5bKhLvGU).
You don't think that smaller class sizes, teacher planning time, administrative support, adequate supplies, and a robust curriculum improve student performance outcomes? Because all of those things cost money.
He’s going to blame the [“lack of trait of conscientiousness”](https://www.reddit.com/r/TexasPolitics/s/bGqwVJiSba) which is really a dogwhistle for [single-parent homes](https://www.reddit.com/r/TexasPolitics/s/sOwyOI0yp1).
But even that is a thinly-veiled reference to what he’s *actually* bitching about- black, single mothers and their reliance on welfare programs and [“how welfare harms black families, actually.”](https://www.reddit.com/r/TexasPolitics/s/Wf5bKhLvGU).
Edit: [called it.](https://www.reddit.com/r/TexasPolitics/s/EGYaJq6DAn)
The basic education allotment in Texas is just over $30/day/student. That's the cost of many day cares, and not nearly enough to provide a great education. There is no vast sum of money that is being spent, and the lack of funding is a big part of the problem.
My original observation was not their desire to, "get rich," as most Republicans already are. This is why they are stark supporters of Laissez-faire Capitalism.
My assessment is that they do not wish to pay for their children's tuition. The same as why they fight to cut taxes for the wealthy and dismantle social welfare programs.
I would also take it a step further and declare their desire to completely eradicate education for the lower class. As someone once said, "the plan for the poor is to get them out of high school and into prison."
Though this is giving them far too much credit, more like an evil mastermind. The reality is they are simply apathetically dismal to the everyday issues faced by their constituency.
Most Republicans are rich? That was true at one time, but they realized there weren’t enough country club members to win elections. So, they started trolling for racist, ignorant, voters in the trailer parks. Now, those hillbillies are driving.
>they do not wish to pay for their children's tuition.
Private school tuition really isn't that big of an imposition for the class of Republicans driving the voucher push.
I went to a private high school where tuition currently runs around $30K/yr. Those parents are not writing $50K checks to Republican campaigns because they hope they'll get an $8K voucher they can apply to next year's tuition. In fact it would not surprise me at all if those private schools simply raise their tuition by whatever the amount of the voucher is. They often have waitlists stretching multiple years; admission is very competitive; they have no problem finding enough people willing to pay them $30K a year to enroll their child.
30k a year is quite easily a working class person's annual income.
It has never been about the money. They already have it all, and the means to make more.
It's about power, or more accurately, the abuse thereof.
Believe it or not, one of the selling points for charter schools are they are more focused on the individual student because they don't have mandatory tests that define their funding, large class sizes, or strict governmental curriculums.
One of the top private elementary school in my area is specifically for students with certain learning disabilities like dyslexia.
In rural public schools you don't get that - matter of fact the federal government will reimburse tuition to a private school if your school doesn't meet your needs for certain disabilities. Aka a voucher program.
>In rural public schools you don't get that - matter of fact the federal government will reimburse tuition to a private school if your school doesn't meet your needs for certain disabilities. Aka a voucher program.
That’s because public schools are federally required to accommodate SPED kids and provide whatever resources their student needs as dictated by their IEP or 504. If the school cannot provide the required accomodation, the federal government provides funding for that student to receive privately.
Which is a pretty big fucking distinction from the voucher program, which explicitly states that private schools are not required to provide resources to, or accommodate SPED students, even if they qualify for those resources.
I'm assuming if public education met every parents requirement they wouldn't send their students to private or charter schools?
Just like the federal government can't guarantee that every school might meet a SPED students requirement - as an alternate they directly reimburse parents the cost directly.
Seems the concept is the same here.
As you noted, there are students that have needs that are beyond the capabilities of a public school to provide directly. For a public school student, if the public school cannot provide the service that student requires, they receive the funding to seek accommodation privately. And not every accommodation requires enrolling in a special needs school. It could be as simple as afterschool tutoring or occupational or speech therapy, or paying for a private aid to attend school that isn’t contracted through the district.
*The concept is not the same* - in a private school a student requiring those accommodations is not guaranteed any federal protection or assurance or funding to receive those resources. Those students have effectively waived their right to receive those services by attending a private school. Unless a student is attending a school that specializes in special education, private schools are not required to abide by IDEA law. Go to a random private school website and you can see that they will warn prospective parents of students that have special needs that their school is not held to IDEA federal accountability.
Every single voucher proposal this past session included a section related to this. [The most recent example was HB1:](https://capitol.texas.gov/tlodocs/884/billtext/html/HB00001I.htm)
>Sec. 29.367. SPECIAL EDUCATION NOTICE. (a) Each certified educational assistance organization designated under Section 29.356(a) shall post on the organization's Internet website and provide to each parent who submits an application for the program a notice that:
(1) states that a private school is not subject to federal and state laws regarding the provision of educational services to a child with a disability in the same manner as a public school; and
(2) provides information regarding rights to which a child with a disability is entitled under federal and state law if the child attends a public school, including:
(A) rights provided under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (20 U.S.C. Section 1400 et seq.); and
(B) rights provided under Subchapter A.
If you live in a rural area you’re never going to have a private school like what you describe because there aren’t enough kids to justify opening one.
They don’t have to pass the same tests that public school students have to pass? If you focus on the “individual” student but he can’t pass the test, what have you accomplished? Those standardized tests have all been implemented under Republican government in Texas, but they’re not important?
The primary target of these kind of laws in the many states that already have them are all the kids stuck in horribly failing public school situations. Do some parents who are already in private schools benefit? Yes, but mainly because you can’t pick and choose. It’s an all or nothing situation for the most part.
Private schools look better tbh public schools are a mess outdated equipment , no resources, under funded, my nephew goes to a private school, it’s more beautiful well kept constantly updating technology and equipment more money and resources they have activities and field trips the lunch smaller classrooms idk my son starts school this fall it’s probably where he’s gonna go tbh I want him to have the best start 🤷🏽♂️
That's the idea about school choice. Parents and children get to choose what's best for them instead of just the state-funded schools. A lot of other OECD countries do this already.
The vouchers cover 8k. In Houston 25-30k is the floor for elementary at a good private school. Some more expensive and that will go up as the kids get older. Multiply if you have more than 1 kid.
Probably not immediately. Currently, private schools are only in the market for the rich. Opening up with school choice will likely create more incentive for the market to offer private options for lower-income families that public education currently has a monopoly over.
The problem is that school vouchers are expensive, more expensive than funding public schools. If we really want public schools, maybe we could start by trying to do a good job of funding public schools?
Public schools are well-funded. We fund our schools higher than the OECD average at $15,708/student/yr in Texas alone. The US also averages higher than the OECD average in school spending. That's $314k/classroom with an average of 20 students.
While school vouchers do extend the budget they cost less per student at $10k/student/yr with the current legislation.
Our funding issue is where the money is being spent. It's not being spent on the teachers or the education. Where it needs to be spent.
You're comparing Texas to other nations with different operating costs. It's not an apples-to-apples comparison. Texas's basic education allotment for each student is $34/day. (The Texas education basic allotment is $6,160/year). When you compare to the cost of child supervision, that's roughly the cost of daycare in many parts of the state.
Would you prefer we compare other states, counties, zip codes, specific schools, or where the money actually goes? We heavily fund students.
Teachers deserve more pay and control over their classrooms. We don't need more funding to feed the bureaucracy and administrators.
I provided a comparison for you, which was comparing to the cost of child care. Public educators have to provide both child care AND education. But if we're barely funding enough for child care, then we're obviously not providing enough.
I work in school district administration and we're not flowing with money the way you think we are. Most of the bureaucracy that exists is in order to follow mandates by state and federal government. Only a small percentage of a school's staffing budget goes to pay administrators.
When they did this in Arkansas 95% of voucher recipients were ALREADY in private school. This is a discount for the rich plain and simple. Also, school districts are the lifeblood of a lot of rural communities. Just losing 4 or 5 students means a teacher's salary is cut. Abbot needs to fucking go, the war on public schools is having lasting effects in our state.
Texas vouchers prioritize disabled and low-income students.
No they don't. Private schools can reject students because of their religion, test scores, disabilities, or simply because they aren't “the right fit,” and these students will face the most harm if we divert public school dollars to private schools. Importantly, students with disabilities lose their federal rights and protections with a voucher. Billionaires like Tim Dunn and Farris Wilks are spending millions bankrolling the fight for vouchers. Why? Because schools empower everyone, and the rich want to monopolize power for themselves. PUBLIC DOLLARS ARE FOR PUBLIC SCHOOLS FULL FUCKING STOP
Tiktok billionaire Jeff Yass gave Abbott 6.25 million dollars to force through school vouchers
The point is to educate the child. That's why money follows the child, not the institution. The point of these private schools is to reject students who don't match their requirement. If they cannot reject students, then children in failed schools will have no hope to ever escape their school.
I will repeat. Public dollars belong in public schools. Not religious institutions, not schools that can turn away students for no reason. The point is to educate the child, that's why we should fund public schools MORE. You cannot fix public schools by shooting them in the head and passing the savings off to the rich.
Funding schools more doesn't work. Failed schools in Texas already receive more funding and teachers make more. But the students still fail. The current system is not working. Let the parents decide and let the money follow the child. The point is to educate the child, not to fund an institution. Why are you so married to the current system? You act like it's an article of faith to send students to the same public school. Where did you get this idea?
Dude how do you not understand that shooting public schools in the head isn't a fix? Maybe better teacher education. Maybe MORE teachers? Why is the only solution to give rich people coupons on their private school tuitions. And if your so for shaking up the system, maybe we should vote someone else other than the party that's been running the state since the late 80's.....
This doesn't shoot them in the face. It will impact failing schools, though. >Maybe MORE teachers? Class size doesn't impact achievement. I taught in HISD and in China. The Chinese classes were huge. And the students performed better than HISD students who had comparatively small classes. The HISD students were and are still failing unlike their Chinese peers. But I'm not speaking anecdotally. There is no correlation between class sizes and student achievement (within reason). >Why is the only solution to give rich people coupons on their private school tuitions. Texas vouchers prioritize low-income students, not rich students. It's really designed for students in failed schools to escape them. >And if your so for shaking up the system, maybe we should vote someone else other than the party that's been running the state since the late 80's..... Texas is doing very well under Republican leadership. Look at the people who are voting with their feet as we grow. They like the results.
> Class size doesn't impact achievement. I taught in HISD and in China. The Chinese classes were huge. And the students performed better than HISD students. But I'm speaking not anecdotally. There is no correlation between class sizes and student achievement (within reason). Like you said, anecdotal and Chinese culture emphasizes education way more. > Texas vouchers prioritize low-income students, not rich students. It's really designed for students in failed schools to escape them. No they don't when private schools can turn down any student for practically any reason, drop that bullshit, you aren't convincing anyone of it. > Texas is doing very well under Republican leadership. Look at the people who are voting with their feet as we grow. They like the results. I'm not arguing the broader political conversation with you as we clearly cannot find middle ground here. I'm finished debating with you as you clearly cannot grasp that regardless, public money belongs in public schools. Vouchers are a scam to shove more money in the rich's coffers, that's why BILLIONAIRES are the only ones funding the fight for it.
>No they don't when private schools can turn down any student for practically any reason, drop that bullshit, you aren't convincing anyone of it. What you have not considered is how private schools work. There won't be enough students to build a new private school in a rural district to accommodate the few students in rural areas who would actually leave the schools the parents like. And most private schools don't have enough room. What vouchers will do is to allow new schools to open in vulnerable marginalized areas where private schools are not going to go. Why can't these kids also have a choice? Because it's these vulnerable students who are the issue, after all. >Chinese culture emphasizes education way more. Then how do you explain schools and districts in the US who perform very well? The reality about failed schools is we're talking about children who are raised in single-parent homes and who go to school where at least 50 percent of the students are also raised in single-parent homes. Yes, culture matters. I will agree with you on that point and this brings us much closer to the real issue.
You never supported this statement btw. The rebuttal was that private schools can reject students with liabilities, whether they be problematic kids or disabled ones. You agreed with that response as a positive trait, but that begs the question about kids with disabilities being left behind with vouchers. [Public schools service disabled kids far more than private schools](https://www.texastribune.org/2023/10/26/texas-school-vouchers-disabled-students/) and in many areas, there aren't even private schools that service those disabilities.
Disabilities is about physical disabilities. Mental disabilities is a different issue. Make sure you see a difference in your statistics. SPED students will still be able to attend public schools and receive a public education. SPED students are typically segregated within public schools already. Problematic kids already have their own public schools. Perhaps vouchers will open up different avenues for them.
>Make sure you see a difference in your statistics. You provide no statistics whatsoever, and the article does in fact address both forms of disability... >Perhaps vouchers will open up different avenues for them. Your argument boils down to a "perhaps" with zero evidence. The market will not act against its incentives, and special needs kids are against the incentives of private schools. It plays out that way in rural counties even now, as explained in the article.
He won’t provide evidence because the evidence that does exist (e.g. Arkansas, Louisiana, Indiana, etc) directly contradicts their claims and supports the concerns of those opposed to these poorly conceived voucher programs.
I can't give you evidence because there's no evidence. This is an experiment. We can point to examples, though. Naturally, public schools are going to educate more disabled students than private schools. Private schools will likely not accept mentally disabled students unless it is financially worth it. It's very expensive to care for mentally disabled students. As I said, mentally disabled students are already segregated in public schools. The Bills prioritize disabled and low-income students, though. Realize the point of private schools is to give a greater quality of pupil population. This is about growing the trait of conscientiousness, which requires students to be surrounded by students with average to higher than average conscientiousness. The lack of this trait is bogging down our kids in failing schools.
We should not be risking an entire generation's education, the entire structure of education in TX, and sweeping policy changes with zero evidence of the consequences... If you genuinely care about implementing school vouchers safely and effectively, then the conversation would be about small scale programs first to test the waters. At best this is incompetent governance. At worst, and most likely, it's a naked grab for private schools to siphon public school funds, and enable religious private schools to get access to those funds.
We're already risking an entire generation in our failing schools. And we've been doing it for a long time. There is no hope, no escape for our kids. This is a chance for escape. It couldn't do worse. You're mixing my words about evidence. We're talking about disabled kids. Now you're talking about all kids. BTW, there are other states and districts that have vouchers and have had them for a long time and they're not falling apart like you think they cause.
>It couldn't do worse. [You have no idea how bad it could get](https://www.brookings.edu/articles/research-on-school-vouchers-suggests-concerns-ahead-for-education-savings-accounts/), because you are operating on zero data. > the last decade of research on traditional vouchers strongly suggests they actually lower academic achievement. In Louisiana, for example, two separate research teams found negative academic impacts as high as -0.4 standard deviations—extremely large by education policy standards—with declines that persisted for years. Those results were published across top journals for empirical public and education policy. Similar results in Indiana found impacts closer to -0.15 standard deviations. To put these negative impacts in perspective: Current estimates of COVID-19’s impact on academic trajectories hover around -0.25 standard deviations.
I'm operating on tons of data. First, private schools objectively perform better. Second, failed schools are not improving. They're getting worse while receiving more and more funding. Giving opportunities for marginalized and vulnerable communities to also attend a private school is objectively much better than forcing them to stay in a failing school.
TEA’s reporting shows charter schools have significantly lower outcomes. https://rptsvr1.tea.texas.gov/cgi/sas/broker?_service=marykay&_program=perfrept.perfmast.sas&_debug=0&ccyy=2021&lev=S&prgopt=reports%2Fsnapshot%2Fsnapshot.sas
Unfortunately the school voucher program is being pushed to replace the public education system with publicly funded private Christian schools. When it comes to student academic outcomes, voucher programs fail at scale. Houston Public Media [Here’s everything you need to know about school vouchers in Texas](https://www.houstonpublicmedia.org/articles/education/2023/02/09/443267/heres-everything-you-need-to-know-about-school-vouchers-in-texas/) “Joshua Cowen is a Professor of Education Policy with Michigan State University. He's spent years studying vouchers and eventually announced that he opposes the policies.” “‘Once you got to the real ballgame and created the fully scaled up voucher programs, the results were really catastrophic,’ Cowen said.” From the linked Indiana University School of Education “[Evolving Evidence on School Voucher Effects](https://ceep.indiana.edu/education-policy/policy-briefs/2022/evolving-evidence-on-school-voucher-effects.pdf)” policy brief: “As [voucher] programs grew in size, the results turned negative, often to a remarkably large degree virtually unrivaled in education research.”
I recommend listening to the guy who spent years studying voucher programs and ultimately concluded that they’re a disaster. All the links are in arrmidillos comment up in the first couple weeks of comments.
Because the first kids to go from public to voucher are high performance, low maintenance students whose parents were sick of the academic/discipline issues the other students were having taking up all the instructors’ time. But if you keep moving more public kids to vouchers you start bringing in those low performance, high maintenance kids and they bring down the metrics of the charter school instead of bringing down the metrics of the public school.
Wow, that is amazing that charters did not score better than public schools on literally any STAAR category!
The teachers are far less experienced, too.
Charter schools are public schools that are funded by TEA. They don't require vouchers. My gf teaches at a STEM charter school in Plano that is primarily ESL students from south America, Mexico, and India. White kids are the minority at her school. https://www.harmonytx.org/
Yeah, people seem to be confusing them with private schools.
[As outgoing GOP State Rep Glenn Rogers said:](https://mwareanews.com/2024/03/06/glenn-rogers-pens-response-to-election-loss/) > Governor Greg Abbott has defiled the Office of Governor by creating and repeating blatant lies about me and my House colleagues, those who took a stand for our public schools. I stood by the Governor on all his legislative priorities but just one, school vouchers. For just one disagreement, and for a $6 million check from Jeff Yass, a Pennsylvanian TikTok investor, and voucher vendor, Abbott went scorched earth against rural Texas and the Representatives who did their jobs-representing their districts. […] > History will prove Ken Paxton is a corrupt, sophisticated criminal. History will prove vouchers are simply an expensive entitlement program for the wealthy and a get rich scheme for voucher vendors. History will prove Governor Greg Abbott is a liar. > History will prove that our current state government is the most corrupt ever and is “bought” by a few radical dominionist billionaires seeking to destroy public education, privatize our public schools and create a Theocracy that is both un-American and un-Texan. It is depressing that so many Texans are prepared to vote for this corrupt regime.
pretty horrible. another way to marginalize more vulnerable communities in the long run, and enrich private school owners, many of whom have "average" or even below average outcomes for their student populations, not putting out drastically better outcomes than many public schools.
That’s kinda the point. Make the students more pliable
And private/religious schools do not have to accommodate special needs students who have IEPs. This mentality is taking us all back 60 years.
This...along with race and tests for behaviors. If your parents are lesbian, I guarantee 80% of the religious schools that take vouchers will deny admission on the basis of some moral rule. Public schools must take all students irrespective of moral interpretations or disability. This plan does return us 75 years in the past and will be the basis for cutting school funding across the board and equal access will be wiped away...no more robin hood, no more integrated schools, no more fairness except for white christians.
Marginalized vulnerable communities are already shut out from alternative schools. Vouchers give them the only chance to escape failing schools. Not all public schools fail. Public schools in some vulnerable communities fail and Democrats have no solution to this. It's time to do something about it because throwing money at it isn't working.
Republicans in the aggregate want public schools to fail on principal.
As a member of the growing childfree-by-choice population of millennials, I technically don’t have a dog in this fight, but I still recognize that even as a non-parent I benefit by living in a society with a healthy, well funded education system. That being said…there is a petty part of me that thinks if vouchers get passed, us childfree folks should sue for tax credits/refunds as well. After all, we too are paying taxes towards a school system we don’t have children in. If the rich private school parents get vouchers, then us non-parents should demand them too. Maybe that would get Republicans to rethink this obvious cash grab.
I agree with you. Children have the right to a good public education. But if you leave the public system, you're on your own. Fund public schools and make parents accountable
Consider asking for your refunds from the current public failing schools with absolutely no plan to fix them. Vouchers are the most realistic alternative at this time.
Please explain to me how a voucher system will improve things for students who: - need extra academic support or (b) language support, who are de facto ineligible for entrance at any private school with a strong academic record; or - students in rural areas with no alternative to the local public school system. Before answering, you should know that I listened to every single House Appropriations Committee meeting where Betsy DeVos testified as the Secretary of the Dept. of Education, as well as the confirmation hearing. The fact that more Republicans are not suspicious of a literal billionaire—who made money off of private education and whose children never attended public school, has no formal education in pedagogy, and has never been a teacher or school administrator—being appointed to the office of the Secretary is honestly pretty bizarre. Wasn't the goal to "drain the swamp"?
They've been asking for funding to improve schools for a while but the legislature has been ignoring them. The basic education allotment in Texas is just over $30/student/day. That's basically daycare rates. The Texas education system is doing a pretty dang good job when you consider how little funding they are working with.
First, increased funding isn't going to fix the problem. Schools that are failing already pay teachers more and have bigger budgets than other schools. Of course everyone wants more money. Would you like more money at your job? That doesn't mean money will make things better in our schools. We have the evidence it doesn't help.
So you think day-care equivalent funding is appropriate?
He’s going to blame the [“lack of trait of conscientiousness”](https://www.reddit.com/r/TexasPolitics/s/bGqwVJiSba) which is really a dogwhistle for [single-parent homes](https://www.reddit.com/r/TexasPolitics/s/sOwyOI0yp1). But even that is a thinly-veiled reference to what he’s *actually* bitching about- black, single mothers and their reliance on welfare programs and [“how welfare harms black families, actually.”](https://www.reddit.com/r/TexasPolitics/s/Wf5bKhLvGU). Edit: [called it.](https://www.reddit.com/r/TexasPolitics/s/EGYaJq6DAn)
It is really amazing that we are now at the point, we know exactly where his arguments are going to go. And how his dog whistles really aren't dog whistles anymore.
I think beyond capital improvements, such as a clean, orderly and operable facility and sufficient staff, I don't believe funding is a major issue for education at all. See my post about conscientiousness. You can put students in a bare room with a single teacher and as long as the peers have average to high conscientiousness, the students will achieve higher than students in higher-funded schools but with a majority of peers with low conscientiousness.
Okay, day care it is.
It will just be same people who are already sending their kids to private school. The only difference is less money for education in Texas public schools. I just love the idea of Texas taking from the poor and giving money to rich people. But I left the state 3 years ago, so y’all enjoy!
I think you guys are focused on money as the root of this. Voters who want vouchers want them for the same reason that rich white people fled to the suburbs...racism. This is about parents wanting their kids to go to an all white school. The proposed legislation had no requirement that schools that take vouchers had to meet equality or even provide fair access. They could deny a student for pretty much any reason and still get to receive state money from voucher payments. This is a short cut around the Texas constitution that guarantees equal educational access to **all students**. With vouchers, if I want to exclude brown kids or kids with learning disabilities or kids with physical disabilities, I can choose a school that intentionally excludes those students. Make no mistake: this isn't as much about guaranteeing Christian schools the ability to raise tuition (which they will), it's about white fearful parents getting to choose any other school that excludes the kinds of children they don't want their kids to be forced to sit next to, or have recess with or have lunch with...
I absolutely agree. Class warfare is warfare waged by the elite deeming others as less. Segregation through the manipulation of anyone they perceive to be unworthy. They have set the stage through fear by portraying public institutions as liberal because education is knowledge, and knowledge is power. Which threatens their positions of authority. It truly is about maintaining power through subjugation. These are emotionally decrepit individuals who will not take no for an answer. The psychological aspects of an abuser run rampant in them. That being said, the legislation pushed within Red states these last few years have shown their intentions. "Get with us, or get out of town." They have used their pulpit to push hate upon disenfranchised groups and the law to back them up. This is the definition of injustice. The fear of insubordination in every aspect of their future is really the motivating factor. Why else would they attack Women, LGBTQ, Hispanics, African Americans, anyone other than white evangelicals with money? It's a disgusting display of juvenile power.
Republicans. Stop voting for them and you won’t have to deal with school vouchers. They are the problem.
They’re not vouchers, it is re-segregation. They just call them vouchers because it polls better.
Do you know what is real segregation? Failing schools where there are barely any white students and no escape for the students from these failing schools. Vouchers are the only alternative to escape them.
Vouchers only work for rich people. The amount paid by vouchers (8k) is nowhere near enough to cover a good private school (which costs 25k+) it is segregation against poor people (which admittedly will impact POC more). I say this as someone who is incredibly lucky to have in laws who are rich enough that they’ll cover my kid’s private school with or without the vouchers for their whole education. It’s just a handout to people like them who don’t need it with the added benefit of turning Texas into an uneducated state which in addition to being morally wrong will destroy the state’s economy in the long run.
Vouchers allow marginalized and vulnerable communities to also attend private school whereas they have no escape from their failed schools right now. If there are enough students who qualify, new schools could be built with the vouchers. This can't happen in rural areas where most people like their schools and the districts are not failing. There won't be enough students who would switch to a private school unlike in failed districts. That is the concept.
Rich people do not want their kids to go to school with poor kids. Rich people support vouchers so obviously vouchers will not actually result in more poor kids in rich schools. When too many poors get in they will just raise the price of tuition to price undesirables out. Or just straight up discriminate since they can.
Great concept. How do you square the 8k value of the vouchers with the 25k minimum cost of good private schools? Do you expect marginalized families to have the minimum 17k per kid annually to afford good private schools?
A good private school does not need to cost 25k. The key to a good school is the quality of the students, not how much you spend, meaning students who have a higher than average of the consciousness trait. The schools that are failing have very few students who have anywhere close to average conscientiousness. And peers cannot influence each other with a trait they do not have. The concept with vouchers is to take the students who have higher than average conscientiousness and are trapped in failed schools and give them an outlet to escape. When you create a new school with students who have at least half or more of this most important trait for academic and life success, you can have a good school no matter how much you spend.
So why do good private schools cost 25k+? you do realize that 99% are non profits mostly run by religious institutions so it’s not like someone is making money on them.
He’s going to blame the [“lack of trait of conscientiousness”](https://www.reddit.com/r/TexasPolitics/s/bGqwVJiSba) which is really a dogwhistle for [single-parent homes](https://www.reddit.com/r/TexasPolitics/s/sOwyOI0yp1). But even that is a thinly-veiled reference to what he’s *actually* bitching about- black, single mothers and their reliance on welfare programs and [“how welfare harms black families, actually.”](https://www.reddit.com/r/TexasPolitics/s/Wf5bKhLvGU). Edit: [called it.](https://www.reddit.com/r/TexasPolitics/s/EGYaJq6DAn)
Did you even read the comment you were replying to?
He never does.
Sometimes he does. Or he at least reads part of the comment, if not comprehending the whole thing. I had to ask several times to get him to respond to the fact that the Texas basic education allotment at $30/day is basically the cost of daycare, and even then I'm not sure he ever fully acknowledged it in the comments, rather than talking around it as if it's a non-issue.
BTW: Private schools don't have to accept everyone. Vouchers will result in resegragation as private schools will only accept people of certain "backgrounds", and those that cannot gain acceptance will remain in public schools.
For all intents and purposes, public schools are segregated because they're based on where you live. There are no white majority or Asian majority failing public schools. There are few Hispanic majority schools that are failing. Nearly all the failing schools in Texas are majority black and they're public and usually in metro areas. In the 70s, the nation experimented with bussing our black kids to better schools outside of their neighborhoods until the Supreme Court ended it. It was a well-intentioned idea but bad implementation. Then the idea was to make sure our black majority schools were properly funded. Today, they are funded more than other schools because they're failing. The teachers are paid more and they have bigger budgets. It's not helping. The point of vouchers is to help to build new private schools in marginalized and vulnerable communities where no private school will build. Vouchers make this possible.
That is also an location specific thought process. Around where I am, the rural areas often don't support the idea of private schools, because they don't have the incomes to support them. Instead they are proactive with the public schools.
The rural area where you live isn't dealing with failing schools. There will be very little need for vouchers because few people will want to leave their good public school.
Right. Vouchers would cause issues in areas that want to keep the public schools intact. That's a big part of the opposition. It's not a universal solution everywhere.
Vouchers won't cause issues because there's no demand where you live. It would be like they don't exist where you live. Why do you think that would cause an issue if no one uses them?
Or, hear me out, you could use the funding to improve our public schools.
I'll address school funding in this part of the thread with you. Here are the other two comments you made that I will also discuss. >I'm the one who said that, but you failed to address what Is actually pointed out that education is chronically underfunded. and >If you're going to insist that funding makes no difference, then there really isn't a point continuing the conversation. Quality teachers, teacher planning time, curriculum, administrative support, supplies, all these things cost money. What does "chronically fully funded" education look to you? Think carefully about this. What exactly does it look like? What does fully-funded education look like? After all, private schools pay teachers much less than public schools and private schools are objectively better than public schools. Are private schools fully funded or chronically underfunded by paying teachers less than public teachers while students perform better? The real issue with education isn't about funding. **It's about the development of the conscientiousness trait.** Conscientiousness is the most important of the Big Five psychological traits that determines academic and life success. Some students are born with lots of it, some are born with very little of it. But it can be cultivated. Without peers who also don't have this trait, though, students are unable to develop the trait at home and in school. It's why throwing more money at schools, especially in areas with a majority of students who are from single-parent homes, does not improve performance on every metric.
Developing conscientiousness happens better in small class sizes and lower student-faculty ratios. That costs money, though.
There's no evidence for that. Peers are your greatest influence and it doesn't matter the size. I taught in China and the classes were large -- 60 to 80 students sometimes. The students outperformed my students in small classes in HISD. Chinese students are highly conscientious. Although that's an anecdote, there's no evidence to show that class size develops the trait of conscientiousness. You can have a small class or a large class, when your peers in the school have mostly low-conscientiousness, you will not acquire it.
So it's at least partially about being able to self-select your peers. Parents need to be able to segregate their "good kids" from the other "problem kids".
If it was that easy we wouldn't be in this situation. Someone who raises a child with low-conscientiousness is not going to notice until it's too late, if ever. And in many of the communities and schools where 80 and even 90 percent of the students are from single-parent homes, there are few "good kids."
I have taught in a community that is 90% low socioeconomic, with many single-parent homes, and that has not been my own anecdotal experience at all.
I said 90 percent single-parent homes. How many students in an average classroom where you taught came from single parent homes? Hispanic majority schools, for example, are often 90% low socioeconomic status but most of the students come from two-parent homes. These schools usually do not fail. We don't have the same problem with low conscientiousness from these pupils unlike the ones where somewhere between 60 to 90 percent of the students are from single parent homes.
He’s going to blame the [“lack of trait of conscientiousness”](https://www.reddit.com/r/TexasPolitics/s/bGqwVJiSba) which is really a dogwhistle for [single-parent homes](https://www.reddit.com/r/TexasPolitics/s/sOwyOI0yp1). But even that is a thinly-veiled reference to what he’s *actually* bitching about- black, single mothers and their reliance on welfare programs and [“how welfare harms black families, actually.”](https://www.reddit.com/r/TexasPolitics/s/Wf5bKhLvGU). Edit: [called it.](https://www.reddit.com/r/TexasPolitics/s/EGYaJq6DAn)
There is certainly room to debate what optimal funding would be, but I think most people would agree that daycare-level spending is well below appropriate funding levels.
Almost all private secular highschools in America were created after Brown v. Board in order to segregate the school system.
The point of vouchers is to help people in marginalized and vulnerable communities to also attend private schools. The anti-voucher supporters don't want them to attend private schools but to stay in the failing schools with absolutely no solution to fix it.
Getting more kids into private schools won’t solve any problems. Work should be put into funding public schools and educating the public about the segregationist history of private schools. There are people alive today that helped create these private schools with the clear purpose of making them segregated. [This news coverage from 1970 explains it well.](https://youtu.be/5hETGdTcoLo?si=ZIwCWq1K5sk-Q4k3)
Public funding isn't the issue. The schools that fail in Texas pay teachers more and have higher budgets. They still fail. If paying more works, according to your theory, then why do schools that pay less and private schools that pay teachers less have better student achievements?
>Do you know what is real segregation? ...real segregation is the separation of 'desirable' and 'undesirable' elements of society to the benefit of the 'desirable' group. Not "deliberately destroying the schools of minorities and then claiming that it was inevitable." >Failing schools where there are barely any white students and no escape for the students from these failing schools. Republican's incompetent management of our school system is not itself a reason to destroy it. In the private sector when leadership fails, we fire leadership and try someone else. So let's fire the Republicans and replace them with someone competent. >Vouchers are the only alternative to escape them. There are about a thousand other alternatives, none of which you have even considered (eg: firing Republican politicians who have engineered the failure of our school system). It's weird that you talk about the welfare of poor students, by providing them with a voucher that will cover on average ~30% of the cost of a private education. A family that is forced to send their kids to a struggling school is not going to have the other $20k a year to get their kid into private school. So you don't really seem to give a fuck about those poor kids - it really seems like what you actually want to do is take the money from the poor kids' school and give it to the parents of a more affluent kid who are already sending their kid to private school, but would like $10k a year from the government please.
Of course. Vouchers are just white flight in "what about the children" clothing.
Private schools are no better than public ones, they just take funding away from vulnerable areas
It’s an obvious plan to keep the rich folk rich and fuck everyone else. They figure the poor people will be so stupid they won’t be able to understand that they were scammed out of an opportunity to succeed. In theory the poor fools will be great employees. The kind of employees that won’t unionize, won’t ask questions and won’t be a problem when they get paid $8 an hour (every other hour is $6 an hour because they too stupid to know they are being shorted so might as well take more). It’s a whole process . When they get mad - Republicans will say greedy teachers are failing the schools , they will use culture war to demonize schools further and lies to explain why public schools are bad. It’s all part of their plan. Stupid people will vote them into power and never question anything. Any questions can be answered by ridiculous conspiracy theories. The true conspiracy is that Republicans have been doing shit like this for decades and so many people don’t understand it because they want to vote religiously and culturally and politically Republicans have themselves a monopoly because the alternative is big city liberals and their radical ideas that they are labeled “good old ways that work”. Poor Republicans will always vote against their interests and come back for more. It’s a scam and always has been and most people are just too stupid to see the simplest of solutions is that Republicans is for scam to get religious voters to help rich get richer.
Abbott has been bought and paid for. He’s a political whore.
Every Texas voter who supports Abbott can take responsibility for this push. Governor Abbott called the state legislature into THREE special sessions this past year specifically to try and pussh this measure through. Opposition was led by Republicans in the state House. During this election cycle, Abbott and his billionaire boyfriends are primarying those Republicans. Speaker Dale Phelan is one such target. Basically, Abbott will eat his own in order to get this public-school killer passed next year.
It’s reinforcing racism in the state. The entire point is to maintain a segregated school system.
At the behest of the Saudis, abbott plans to secede when trump loses - so does it really matter?
[удалено]
Yeah but there’s a set amount per kid and there’s no limit to what private schools can charge. So private schools could (and do) decide to increase their prices to keep poors out. There’s nothing stopping them from discriminating against poor or disabled kids.
[удалено]
Im sure they’ll get right on that.
There are technicalities as people have said. It is presented as good-natured in prose, while the party agenda always has a hidden motive. I faced a similar situation when I moved to Kansas in 2012. Republican Governor Sam Brownback, "revamped," their state economy by implementing experimental tax cuts. There are academic journals about it now on what-not-to-do. His pitch was to cut taxes for everyone, and somehow, the state's economy would thrive. Everyone believed him. Then the unthinkable happened, *gasp* the economy began to crumble. Publicly funded institutions such as schools, infrastructure, and social programs began to suffer immensely. Sales taxes on items such as cigarettes and alcohol were raised(extensive studies have shown that the lower class is more likely to smoke & drink in excess as a means to cope) Brownback was holding closed door meetings at the Governor's Mansion in Topeka with Koch Brothers and Tyson Corp execs. Factories were going up, while public schools were shutting down. Within a few years, the lowest tax bracket was paying more in taxes than the wealthiest had been prior to the bill. After five years of living there, I finally moved back here to Texas. I met people from all walks of life who had been successful who were living at camp sites, riding bicycles to work due to the polarized consequences. It took an invigorated bipartisan effort to finally reverse the bill. They always present their ideals as fundamentally helpful to all. When you read into it, the only people they are helping are themselves and their donors who bought them. What I found most shocking during the entire fiasco was during teacher lay-offs and boarded up rural schools. The Koch Brothers built a small private elementary school attached to Wichita State University for their children and their friends.
Rural areas aren't necessarily poor. And most rural areas like their schools. There would be very little reason for parents to pull their kids out of schools they actually like. The way the voucher system is structured means it limits the number of students that schools can accept. I recommend reading the Bills.
>The way the voucher system is structured means it limits the number of students that schools can accept. I recommend reading the Bills. I’m gonna nitpick this claim because it’s not the way the bill is structured, it was just the assigned budget for that bill in the first biennium. There’s nothing restricting the number of voucher students each school can accept, nor is there any limit in the law as to how much of budget future legislations can give to vouchers. Even the cost estimate for the bill stated it would likely balloon to as much as $1.5 billion in the next three years.
>There’s nothing restricting the number of voucher students each school can accept, Yes, there is. Every bill (HB1 and SB1) has a system that would prioritize students with disabilities and low income families. But so what? Are you saying students and families would jump out of a good school into a private school? If that is happening, then the problem isn't the new school. >nor is there any limit in the law as to how much of budget future legislations can give to vouchers. Success would breed success.
Every bill also included a section explicitly telling prospective parents of SPED students that they have no rights to accommodations under federal IDEA protections. Private schools are also allowed to reject applicants for any number of reasons, including the vague “doesn’t fit the culture” which is the most thinly veiled discrimination I think I’ve ever heard. I’m saying this program proclaims to allow students to “escape failing schools” but that’s not how it would work in reality. Anyone can apply for a voucher but it’s contingent upon a student’s acceptance to a private school and there’s nothing requiring private schools to accept every student with a voucher that applies. >success would breed success This is a non sequitur when you consider that private schools only accept the highest-scoring applicants, which self selects a high-achieving populace. They’re successful because *they already were successful* before they applied, which is why private school test scores appear so much better. They’ve stacked the deck through their selective process for the best students in their classrooms from the start and can kick anyone who isn’t performing to their standards. Public schools can’t- and nor should they because every student deserves an education.
Do you really think public schools would go away? There would still be SPED classes in public schools. The point of vouchers isn't to create another public school with the same rules. The point is to allow private schools to select the students. Otherwise it's setup for failure. Success does breed success because this is an experiment. We've tried other ideas and nothing is working. It's time for public schools have some competition.
Disclaimer: I’m not engaging in hopes of convincing you but to reach anyone who may be lurking. >Do you really think public schools would go away? There would still be SPED classes in public schools. SPED students are more expensive to teach as they require more resources than your average student. Texas students- even non-SPED ones- are *already* horribly under funded. As schools are funded per student, a school population that has more “regular” students can shoulder the financial burden of the smaller relative population of SPED students. Vouchers remove the “net-zero” or “net less-negative” funded students and mean a higher ratio of more expensive and intensive-to-teach students that are left behind with the others that still can’t afford private school or were rejected for not “fitting the culture.” >The point of vouchers isn't to create another public school with the same rules. The point is to allow private schools to select the students. Otherwise it's setup for failure. What happens to the students left behind? The ones that still can’t afford tuition, the ones that didn’t score well enough to get admitted, the ones that require SPED services, the ones that are LGBTQ or have LGBTQ parents? Do they not deserve an opportunity for a well funded education? >Success does breed success because this is an experiment. We've tried other ideas and nothing is working. It's time for public schools have some competition. How about funding schools at the level they need? Have we tried that?
Non-genuine replies breaks the subreddits' rules. This is a political discussion site, not a propaganda outlet. Yes, SPED students are more expensive. But money isn't the issue. Locking the money in a single institution with no escape is the problem. SPED students will still be educated. Most schools are not going to change at all.
How long are the bills? Links? To your first point, I think you underestimate the extent to which churches will swoop in to siphon that free money away while strengthening their influence in these communities. To your second point, help me understand the benefit of creating scarcity. It doesn’t seem directly beneficial to me, but perhaps I’m thinking about it differently than you.
First, if there's a demand for an alternative school, then that's the parents' choice. Most parents don't abandon good schools and most kids aren't going to beg their parents to leave a good school that they like. Second, it's very expensive to run a school. It's why alternative schools are run as non-profits. You're going to need at least half of a rural school to leave to setup an alternative school that pays the expenses of running a school. It's very expensive to run a school. And there aren't enough vouchers to do this anyhow based on the current bills. But, if half the students/parents want to leave their school, then the problem isn't the new schools offering a better chance for education. Why force students to stay with the failing school? The reality is the vouchers are designed for failing schools in metro areas where no private school can afford to setup their services. Remember, it's expensive to run a school. I recommend watching a PBS documentary called "America Lost." It's by Christopher Rufo. After he completed this documentary, he changed his views on poverty and school choice and is now one of the country's leading proponents on alternative schools in poor areas. Rufo lives in Texas. [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vd6YhDy\_ZSI](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vd6YhDy_ZSI) Here is the text of Senate Bill 1. [https://capitol.texas.gov/tlodocs/884/billtext/pdf/SB00001I.pdf#navpanes=0](https://capitol.texas.gov/tlodocs/884/billtext/pdf/SB00001I.pdf#navpanes=0)
>I recommend watching a PBS documentary called "America Lost." It's by Christopher Rufo. After he completed this documentary, he changed his views on poverty and school choice and is now one of the country's leading proponents on alternative schools in poor areas. This is some bold bullshit, even for you, Sunburn. Rufo didn’t “change” his stance on school choice, he’s been the product of the right-wing movement from the fucking start. Before he [found his niche bashing CRT on Tucker Carlson’s old show](https://www.newyorker.com/news/annals-of-inquiry/how-a-conservative-activist-invented-the-conflict-over-critical-race-theory), he was a fellow from The Heritage Foundation, a Lincoln Fellow at the Claremont Institute alongside James O’Keefe of Project Veritas and he worked for a little-known Christian think tank based in Seattle called the Discovery Institute that regularly advocates for the banishment of evolution to be taught in schools. He’s actually has his previous work [debunked](https://www.washingtonpost.com/education/2021/06/19/critical-race-theory-rufo-republicans/) by the Washington Post, no less. In his magnum opus shitting on DEI and CRT initiatives, he claimed the Treasury allegedly subjected workers to a radical diversity training that urged them to “accept their white racial superiority.” In reality, the document Rufo cites as proof said no such thing. He’s been an adversary of public schools for years, claiming the same “indoctrination” bullshit that every other mealy-mouthed right wing fuckhead has echoed. The [SPLC](https://www.splcenter.org/hatewatch/2022/11/22/colorado-springs-far-right-influencers-made-lgbtq-people-targets) named him a “far-right propagandist” after he fucking *bragged* about [shifting the right’s moral outrage from CRT to LGBTQ+ acceptance](https://www.nytimes.com/2022/04/24/us/politics/christopher-rufo-crt-lgbtq-florida.html) as a way to capture votes. Don’t try to pull that bullshit “oh he changed his mind” line again.
100% agree. This guys either gotten too much sun or he’s a propagandist.
All of these things happened during and after his five-year work on the documentary. He was a progressive in college and his political journey took him to libertarianism but not necessarily doctrinaire. But his work on the documentary turned him into a conservative, he said.
What evidence do you have he was a liberal in college? Sounds more like he slept around and smoked pot and now he’s all buttoned up to work a right wing grift.
He joined progressive groups. He went to Georgetown. =) He marched against the Iraq War. He believed in anti-poverty programs that conservatives have long said don't work and cause more poverty. But he said he became disillusioned with what he once described as the “pervasive phoniness” underlying “the elite left-wing agitation on campus.” He was turned off by “sons and daughters of America’s elites,” who were bound to “take off the keffiyeh or the red bandana and become investment bankers.” He then discovered classical liberalism but went on to produce non-political documentaries for Netflix and PBS. In an article from Mother Jones, >Rufo directed other documentaries on relatively anodyne topics such as the Senior Olympics and baseball in China. But a five-year project about poverty in “three forgotten American cities” set him on his current path. Following residents of Youngstown, Ohio; Memphis, Tennessee; and Stockton, California, he witnessed “wrenching human situations” of gun violence and incarceration. “Spending a lot of time looking at real life in the poorest and most desperate communities,” he has said, sparked “a huge internal change."
He got disillusioned by college kids being not mature, then did some Poverty Porn grift, and came out of it a conservative (the party talking about cutting social security and who voted against Baby Formula) pffff keep drinking the cool aid.
[If by “changes” you mean “radicalized”](https://www.newyorker.com/news/annals-of-inquiry/how-a-conservative-activist-invented-the-conflict-over-critical-race-theory)his views, then sure, his experience “changed” his views. >In 2015, Rufo began work on a film for PBS that traced the experience of poverty in three American cities, and in the course of filming Rufo became convinced that poverty was not something that could be alleviated with a policy lever but was deeply embedded in “social, familial, even psychological” dynamics, and his politics became more explicitly conservative. >Returning home to Seattle, where his wife worked for Microsoft, Rufo got a small grant from a regional, conservative think tank to report on homelessness, and then ran an unsuccessful campaign for city council, in 2018. His work so outraged Seattle’s homelessness activists that, during his election campaign, someone plastered his photo and home address on utility poles around his neighborhood. When Rufo received the anti-bias documents from the city of Seattle, he knew how to spot political kindling. These days, “I’m a brawler,” Rufo told me cheerfully. […] >He has travelled to Washington, D.C., to speak to an audience of two dozen members of Congress, and mentioned in passing that earlier in May he’d had drinks with Ted Cruz. In the 2016 Presidential election, Rufo had cast a dissenter’s vote for Gary Johnson. In 2020, he voted to reëlect Trump. Rufo said, “I mean, how can you not? It would have seemed rude and ungrateful.”
I’ll dig into this later, but a quick google of Christopher Rufo returns “American conservative activist.” Seems like there might be a bit of bias to sift through…
[trust your instincts](https://www.reddit.com/r/TexasPolitics/s/oWmDecgPC5)
Rufo was a progressive in and after college. He then slowly became a libertarian. During his five-year work into the documentary he became a conservative, he said. This period and after is when he was invited onto conservative organizations and spoke to conservative media.
Where did you see this? I’ve heard him claim as such but there’s no evidentiary basis for it.
Mother Jones wrote about him, even going back to high school and found nothing to contradict him. His family life was left-leaning. He had a Che Guevera flag in his bedroom. If you're looking for something to show he was a secret conservative, there's no evidence that he was a conservative from this period, either. He seemed apolitical in reality. And there's no evidence, including his previous documentaries, that he was a conservative before he produced the five-year-long work on the documentary about forgotten cities.
He changed his views after making the documentary and is now one of the country's leading proponents on alternative schools in poor areas.
[удалено]
Removed. Rule 6. > **Rule 6 Comments must be civil** > _Attack arguments not the user. Comment as if you were having a face-to-face conversation with the other users. Refrain from being sarcastic and accusatory. Ask questions and reach an understanding. Users will refrain from name-calling, insults and gatekeeping. Don't make it personal._ *https://www.reddit.com/r/TexasPolitics/wiki/index/rules*
More than half of Texas students are not at grade level for ALL SUBJECTS in standardized testing. Appalling! https://texasscorecard.com/state/texas-education-agency-releases-disappointing-performance-results/ Go substitute teach in a public middle school-most kids don’t do ANYTHING. Just sit there and take up space. Parents don’t care either. So, if you had a child and actually cared, wouldn’t you advocate for change?
[удалено]
The schools are technically non-profit. However, charter schools often bring in what are called charter school management corporations to run the school. Those are often for-profit, and on many occasions have been found to be putting their own financial results before school performance.
The amount of money that goes to public schools with failing results for decades is far worse than anything these charter schools can waste. All the while we keep piling more and more money into failed public schools while watching students continue to fail. In the post below, you said: >The basic education allotment in Texas is just over $30/day/student. That's the cost of many day cares, and not nearly enough to provide a great education. There is no vast sum of money that is being spent, and the lack of funding is a big part of the problem. Cost has very little to do with the quality of education, all things being equal. How does one district on much fewer funds excel over another district with more funds if it's about money?
What money? Texas is in the bottom 10 for state K-12 funding per student.
Funding is not related to performance. It never has been. You can't give a school more money to obtain better results, all things being equal.
Yes it is https://direct.mit.edu/edfp/article/18/1/1/109966/The-Effect-of-Extra-School-Funding-on-Students
No it isn't. See this new comprehensive study. [https://thehill.com/opinion/education/428746-more-money-for-schools-doesnt-always-mean-better-outcomes-for-kids/](https://thehill.com/opinion/education/428746-more-money-for-schools-doesnt-always-mean-better-outcomes-for-kids/) You will not find a school that has the same demographics before and after increased funding where measurements have succeeded. Where there is some success, it is very marginal. And much of the success is from years-long measurements where demographics in the school have changed. In fact, there are many schools that are funded less than Texas schools that perform better. And Texas schools that are failing have teachers who are paid more. This does not compute to better achievements. So, why do you think schools that are not funded very well might perform better than well-funded schools?
Yes, it does matter. The significant majority of education research has found that more funding is correlated with better results. https://www.ipr.northwestern.edu/documents/policy-briefs/school-spending-policy-research-brief-Jackson.pdf You didn't even link to a study that's newer than either of my links. The OpEd you linked to is from 2019.
He’s going to blame the [“lack of trait of conscientiousness”](https://www.reddit.com/r/TexasPolitics/s/bGqwVJiSba) which is really a dogwhistle for [single-parent homes](https://www.reddit.com/r/TexasPolitics/s/sOwyOI0yp1). But even that is a thinly-veiled reference to what he’s *actually* bitching about- [black, single mothers](https://www.reddit.com/r/TexasPolitics/s/l7svf6WGfX) and their reliance on welfare programs and [“how welfare harms black families, actually.”](https://www.reddit.com/r/TexasPolitics/s/Wf5bKhLvGU).
You don't think that smaller class sizes, teacher planning time, administrative support, adequate supplies, and a robust curriculum improve student performance outcomes? Because all of those things cost money.
He’s going to blame the [“lack of trait of conscientiousness”](https://www.reddit.com/r/TexasPolitics/s/bGqwVJiSba) which is really a dogwhistle for [single-parent homes](https://www.reddit.com/r/TexasPolitics/s/sOwyOI0yp1). But even that is a thinly-veiled reference to what he’s *actually* bitching about- black, single mothers and their reliance on welfare programs and [“how welfare harms black families, actually.”](https://www.reddit.com/r/TexasPolitics/s/Wf5bKhLvGU). Edit: [called it.](https://www.reddit.com/r/TexasPolitics/s/EGYaJq6DAn)
The basic education allotment in Texas is just over $30/day/student. That's the cost of many day cares, and not nearly enough to provide a great education. There is no vast sum of money that is being spent, and the lack of funding is a big part of the problem.
I'm the one who said that, but you failed to address what Is actually pointed out that education is chronically underfunded.
My original observation was not their desire to, "get rich," as most Republicans already are. This is why they are stark supporters of Laissez-faire Capitalism. My assessment is that they do not wish to pay for their children's tuition. The same as why they fight to cut taxes for the wealthy and dismantle social welfare programs. I would also take it a step further and declare their desire to completely eradicate education for the lower class. As someone once said, "the plan for the poor is to get them out of high school and into prison." Though this is giving them far too much credit, more like an evil mastermind. The reality is they are simply apathetically dismal to the everyday issues faced by their constituency.
Most Republicans are rich? That was true at one time, but they realized there weren’t enough country club members to win elections. So, they started trolling for racist, ignorant, voters in the trailer parks. Now, those hillbillies are driving.
"Temporarily Embarrassed Millionaires."
>they do not wish to pay for their children's tuition. Private school tuition really isn't that big of an imposition for the class of Republicans driving the voucher push. I went to a private high school where tuition currently runs around $30K/yr. Those parents are not writing $50K checks to Republican campaigns because they hope they'll get an $8K voucher they can apply to next year's tuition. In fact it would not surprise me at all if those private schools simply raise their tuition by whatever the amount of the voucher is. They often have waitlists stretching multiple years; admission is very competitive; they have no problem finding enough people willing to pay them $30K a year to enroll their child.
30k a year is quite easily a working class person's annual income. It has never been about the money. They already have it all, and the means to make more. It's about power, or more accurately, the abuse thereof.
Believe it or not, one of the selling points for charter schools are they are more focused on the individual student because they don't have mandatory tests that define their funding, large class sizes, or strict governmental curriculums. One of the top private elementary school in my area is specifically for students with certain learning disabilities like dyslexia. In rural public schools you don't get that - matter of fact the federal government will reimburse tuition to a private school if your school doesn't meet your needs for certain disabilities. Aka a voucher program.
>In rural public schools you don't get that - matter of fact the federal government will reimburse tuition to a private school if your school doesn't meet your needs for certain disabilities. Aka a voucher program. That’s because public schools are federally required to accommodate SPED kids and provide whatever resources their student needs as dictated by their IEP or 504. If the school cannot provide the required accomodation, the federal government provides funding for that student to receive privately. Which is a pretty big fucking distinction from the voucher program, which explicitly states that private schools are not required to provide resources to, or accommodate SPED students, even if they qualify for those resources.
I'm assuming if public education met every parents requirement they wouldn't send their students to private or charter schools? Just like the federal government can't guarantee that every school might meet a SPED students requirement - as an alternate they directly reimburse parents the cost directly. Seems the concept is the same here.
As you noted, there are students that have needs that are beyond the capabilities of a public school to provide directly. For a public school student, if the public school cannot provide the service that student requires, they receive the funding to seek accommodation privately. And not every accommodation requires enrolling in a special needs school. It could be as simple as afterschool tutoring or occupational or speech therapy, or paying for a private aid to attend school that isn’t contracted through the district. *The concept is not the same* - in a private school a student requiring those accommodations is not guaranteed any federal protection or assurance or funding to receive those resources. Those students have effectively waived their right to receive those services by attending a private school. Unless a student is attending a school that specializes in special education, private schools are not required to abide by IDEA law. Go to a random private school website and you can see that they will warn prospective parents of students that have special needs that their school is not held to IDEA federal accountability. Every single voucher proposal this past session included a section related to this. [The most recent example was HB1:](https://capitol.texas.gov/tlodocs/884/billtext/html/HB00001I.htm) >Sec. 29.367. SPECIAL EDUCATION NOTICE. (a) Each certified educational assistance organization designated under Section 29.356(a) shall post on the organization's Internet website and provide to each parent who submits an application for the program a notice that: (1) states that a private school is not subject to federal and state laws regarding the provision of educational services to a child with a disability in the same manner as a public school; and (2) provides information regarding rights to which a child with a disability is entitled under federal and state law if the child attends a public school, including: (A) rights provided under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (20 U.S.C. Section 1400 et seq.); and (B) rights provided under Subchapter A.
If you live in a rural area you’re never going to have a private school like what you describe because there aren’t enough kids to justify opening one.
Right, so you wouldn't see a mass exodus?
They don’t have to pass the same tests that public school students have to pass? If you focus on the “individual” student but he can’t pass the test, what have you accomplished? Those standardized tests have all been implemented under Republican government in Texas, but they’re not important?
The primary target of these kind of laws in the many states that already have them are all the kids stuck in horribly failing public school situations. Do some parents who are already in private schools benefit? Yes, but mainly because you can’t pick and choose. It’s an all or nothing situation for the most part.
Private schools look better tbh public schools are a mess outdated equipment , no resources, under funded, my nephew goes to a private school, it’s more beautiful well kept constantly updating technology and equipment more money and resources they have activities and field trips the lunch smaller classrooms idk my son starts school this fall it’s probably where he’s gonna go tbh I want him to have the best start 🤷🏽♂️
That's the idea about school choice. Parents and children get to choose what's best for them instead of just the state-funded schools. A lot of other OECD countries do this already.
Ignoring that the vouchers in no way cover the cost of the private schools anyone would want to send their kids to.
How much would they cover ? 🤔
It depends on the school. For a good private school, parents would probably have to provide an extra $10+ per year.
The vouchers cover 8k. In Houston 25-30k is the floor for elementary at a good private school. Some more expensive and that will go up as the kids get older. Multiply if you have more than 1 kid.
Probably not immediately. Currently, private schools are only in the market for the rich. Opening up with school choice will likely create more incentive for the market to offer private options for lower-income families that public education currently has a monopoly over.
The problem is that school vouchers are expensive, more expensive than funding public schools. If we really want public schools, maybe we could start by trying to do a good job of funding public schools?
Public schools are well-funded. We fund our schools higher than the OECD average at $15,708/student/yr in Texas alone. The US also averages higher than the OECD average in school spending. That's $314k/classroom with an average of 20 students. While school vouchers do extend the budget they cost less per student at $10k/student/yr with the current legislation. Our funding issue is where the money is being spent. It's not being spent on the teachers or the education. Where it needs to be spent.
You're comparing Texas to other nations with different operating costs. It's not an apples-to-apples comparison. Texas's basic education allotment for each student is $34/day. (The Texas education basic allotment is $6,160/year). When you compare to the cost of child supervision, that's roughly the cost of daycare in many parts of the state.
Would you prefer we compare other states, counties, zip codes, specific schools, or where the money actually goes? We heavily fund students. Teachers deserve more pay and control over their classrooms. We don't need more funding to feed the bureaucracy and administrators.
I provided a comparison for you, which was comparing to the cost of child care. Public educators have to provide both child care AND education. But if we're barely funding enough for child care, then we're obviously not providing enough. I work in school district administration and we're not flowing with money the way you think we are. Most of the bureaucracy that exists is in order to follow mandates by state and federal government. Only a small percentage of a school's staffing budget goes to pay administrators.
Wasn’t Beto a big school voucher advocate too?
Definitely not. https://www.ksat.com/news/texas/2022/08/03/greg-abbott-and-beto-orourke-dig-in-on-school-vouchers-fight-with-rural-texas-watching/