3 ms·

Of course it’s individual people. The political entity they work for obviously has no will of its own. It is terribly unsurprising to me that people tasked with

Of course it’s individual people. The political entity they work for obviously has no will of its own. It is terribly unsurprising to me that people tasked with a job by the government would do what they can to best carry out that job. Are you scandalized when a city and the county it is in sue each other and the transportation department over who has responsibilities for what sections of road and how much money who should get rather than letting the citizens who drive on those roads decide? Where do you draw the line for what money the government decides how to spend and what money individuals should decide how to spend?

rahimnathwani 2y ago
"It is terribly unsurprising to me that people tasked with a job by the government would do what they can to best carry out that job." Right, but the government tasked school district employees with educating kids who enroll in government-run schools. The legislature explicitly created a voucher scheme, and it's unclear why school district employees would think it was their job to prevent this from happening.
- Pulcinella 2y ago
  Declining enrollment and pulled funding can destroy the ability of a district to carry out the mission tasked to it by the government. This is not just hypothetical. The rural, conservative school district I used to work for (and may, many like them as pointed out in the article) and the families that rely on them do not like school vouchers, even if they otherwise support everything else that politician does. If too many students unenroll and utilize school vouchers, the whole district could collapse due to lack of funding and screw over all the remaining students. This is compounded by the fact that vouchers often pull out more funding that the government otherwise would provide to the district for that student. This is mentioned in the article as well. e.g. the state pays the district $5k a year per student, but pulls $8k a year for a student that uses a voucher. Also, in a lot of these rural areas there are no other good options anyway besides the school district. It’s either the district, a scammy online charter school, a scammy fly-by-night charter school, or homeschooling.
  - rahimnathwani 2y ago
    "This is compounded by the fact that vouchers often pull out more funding that the government otherwise would provide to the district for that student." Can you please help me understand the "This is compounded" part here?
    - Pulcinella 2y ago
      In other words, a private school gets more money from a student’s voucher than a district gets from having that same student enrolled. The voucher doesn’t just move the same amount of money around. A voucher pulls more money from education funding than then enrolling a student in a public school does.
      - deleted 2y ago
        [deleted]

rahimnathwani 2y ago

"It is terribly unsurprising to me that people tasked with a job by the government would do what they can to best carry out that job." Right, but the government tasked school district employees with educating kids who enroll in government-run schools. The legislature explicitly created a voucher scheme, and it's unclear why school district employees would think it was their job to prevent this from happening.

Pulcinella 2y ago
Declining enrollment and pulled funding can destroy the ability of a district to carry out the mission tasked to it by the government. This is not just hypothetical. The rural, conservative school district I used to work for (and may, many like them as pointed out in the article) and the families that rely on them do not like school vouchers, even if they otherwise support everything else that politician does. If too many students unenroll and utilize school vouchers, the whole district could collapse due to lack of funding and screw over all the remaining students. This is compounded by the fact that vouchers often pull out more funding that the government otherwise would provide to the district for that student. This is mentioned in the article as well. e.g. the state pays the district $5k a year per student, but pulls $8k a year for a student that uses a voucher. Also, in a lot of these rural areas there are no other good options anyway besides the school district. It’s either the district, a scammy online charter school, a scammy fly-by-night charter school, or homeschooling.
- rahimnathwani 2y ago
  "This is compounded by the fact that vouchers often pull out more funding that the government otherwise would provide to the district for that student." Can you please help me understand the "This is compounded" part here?
  - Pulcinella 2y ago
    In other words, a private school gets more money from a student’s voucher than a district gets from having that same student enrolled. The voucher doesn’t just move the same amount of money around. A voucher pulls more money from education funding than then enrolling a student in a public school does.
    - deleted 2y ago
      [deleted]