You don't have to sell me on the idea, brother, I've been supporting vouchers since I heard of them. I think you're overly optimistic that there are "lawmakers" on our side, though. Even those from the ostensibly free-market party, when they get into power, rarely support programs that would reduce their own sphere of influence. It's hard to get re-elected by saying "Look what I didn't do for you."
The average private school costs quite a lot less than the average public school. You could spend about half as much per student and still get safer kids and happier parents.
So what "external costs" are you thinking of? Going to a private school does involve travel, but so does going to your assigned public school. Depending on how the district lines are drawn and how centralized the district is, the trip might even be shorter.
>I'm uncertain why you expect anyone to send people to Catholic schools "because cheaper"?
Cheaper, better, and/or safer, yes. Sometimes it's the best available option.
> Not everyone is Catholic.
Sure, but not everyone who attends Catholic schools is Catholic. Lots of Jews, atheists, and agnostics attend Catholic schools. How difficult that is to do depends on the school. In general, yes, the schools will be teaching some stuff your family doesn't believe...but that'd be true for public schools too, no matter what your beliefs are. Heck, having the irrationality in the curriculum be so blatant might produce more healthy skepticism in the kids than when the irrationality takes the more subtle forms it does in public schools!
I'm an atheist, FWIW. Perhaps I did a bad job of correcting you when you kept jumping to conclusions above, but whatever my motivations are doesn't change the fact that the average private school costs less than the average public one. :-)
Your average Democrat who wants to sabotage school vouchers will vote for vouchers of 2 or 3 thousand dollars. Meanwhile spending fifteen grand per student on the public school system. Great way to "prove" that vouchers "don't work".
The true idea of a voucher system is that the parent gets to decide where ALL of their child's share of that spending will go.
However, you seem to gloss over the fact that not all people in this country have a car and their children may be too young for the bus system. Etc.
It isn't "better" if people are too poor to take advantage of the option. So there are additional costs that get frequently overlooked beyond just the cost of school/tuition.
The amount of money has to be enough that even the poorest student has 2-3 options or it becomes pointless.
I don't see why, from an economics perspective. Sure, the person who lives real close to one school and very distant from the other schools may not have other options so good that they overcome the cost difference of travel, however, the people who live halfway between the two schools will still have that choice. This still ensures that there is competitive pressure on the schools. The thing about competition is that it tends to improves the quality/cost ratio of all offerings, even those that don't "win" the competition.
In capitalism, those that don't "win" the competition go bankrupt and die.
I can easily see scenarios [say inner city LA county] where the only options are "bad schools" and siphoning funds away from them while leaving the poorest that are stuck in Compton or the like, isn't going to work.
It has to provide for the poorest to get an education as good as those in richer areas.
So... when will they be taking Pepsi off the shelf? Closing down all the Burger Kings?
LA has dozens if not hundreds of schools. If there are two lousy schools near Compton and parents can choose which ones get the funds earmarked for their child, even those lousy schools will get better fast. They don't have to become the best schools in the country for the parents and children to experience a benefit.
