Implicitly, Private School Would Be Fine

MN state Rep. Steve Drazkowski (R) argues for abolishing early childhood education:

"We should let parents raise their kids until they're 5 at least before government comes with a school bus, backs it up to the maternity ward room door and takes them to the government school." pic.twitter.com/qV1abRUnaQ

— Heartland Signal (@HeartlandSignal) May 9, 2022

But "government school" is the great evil. No, I'm not touching the virtues of early childhood education, because that's not what Drazkowski is talking about here. This is about "government school" v. private school, and the next step is to get public money to flow to private schools. Without, of course, any oversight, because then it's just government school again.

Until it's a total scam where there are ten textbooks for 10 classes (no, I mean 10 volumes in the entire school) and tables with no chairs, and the "lunch room" is a vending machine.  Texas tried that (I'll never tire of saying), and found out that when the cat's away, the mice will steal the cheese and flee the building.

Funny thing about government spending:  when you take money from people basically by force (taxation), you have a very high degree of accountability for that money, whether anyone pays attention to it or not.  You want to get in trouble fast in government employment?  Take some money from the till.

Most of a school board's job is overseeing the district budget and publishing that budget for all to look at (surprise!  No one does.).  It's dull and tedious work, which has nothing to do with controlling classroom curriculum, and everything to do with keeping public money accountable to the public it was taxed from and then spent on.

Governmental agencies and entities account for the money to a degree unknown to private businesses.  That is as it should be.  Now, take that money in taxes, and give it to a private party, and say "We can't have the same kind of oversight because that kills initiative and the "invisible hand of the free market."  And before you know it that invisible hand has done a magic trick of prestidigitation, and made the money disappear!

Which, in the end, is why the whole "give government money to private schools" thing isn't going to work.  There are public/private partnerships in Texas, with companies that run private schools but use public school facilities (which they pay rent for.  Again, accountability.).  They work well, but they also carefully limit the number of students they enroll, for their own purposes.  Government schools take everybody of school age. The district I'm in closed two school campuses for several years because enrollment dropped. (Kids grew up, families stopped moving in with a new supply).  They held onto those buildings and use them now, but someday, they may have to close another one.  Private schools don't maintain nearly so many campuses and, if they can't recruit enough enrollees, they simply go out of business.  If the local school-age population suddenly swells, what private entity is there ready and waiting to receive them?  Not just a chosen few, but all of them? Eliminate government school, you eliminate a lot of education.  Or you turn private schools into government schools, something most private schools really don't want to be.

"School vouchers" is a diminishingly attractive solution still in search of a problem.  I know seeing it on the intertoobs makes it seem like it's not fringe, but it's still fringe.  Even the radical crazies around the country running for school boards to eliminate CRT and ban books, aren't trying to back school vouchers as a "solution" to the problem of public schools.  That's rube bait, and nothing more.  My final proof:  Greg Abbott has come out in favor of the idea.  Again.

“We can fully fund public schools while also giving parents a choice about which school is right for their child,” Abbott said during a campaign event in San Antonio. “Empowering parents means giving them the choice to send their children to any public school, charter school or private school with state funding following the student.”

I had my daughter in private school, for many years.  Believe me, what the state will provide a parent in a voucher won't begin to cover the cost of a good private school.  There are two charter schools in my district, both of which use school property and work with the school districts.  They aren't going to take new students on an expanded voucher program, either.  Oh, they may take a few, but they won't take all the applicants who could decide that's the better option. And of course the option is only going to be available to parents who can transport their kids to those schools, afford the uniforms and fees (of private schools, at least), etc., etc., etc. This is a sop to a few people who don't want to extend themselves for private school, but don't like sending their children to the public school with all those non-white students and families.

And it won't happen anyway because the Legislature remembers what happened the last time they tried this.  And over and over and over again, they have declined to put any more money into schools.  Higher taxes, you know; can't have that.  If the funding follows the student without oversight, you're throwing away tax dollars (that was the problem the one time Texas tried this).  If there is oversight, you just have charter schools, which Texas already has.  And those schools get to limit attendance.  Ramping up new charter schools is not like buying an electric car company and turning out crappy product (every Tesla on the road, every last one of them, has been recalled for one problem or another) with snappy marketing to fool the rubes.

But that's all this is: rube bait.  Abbott is starting to get desperate.  He's chasing the urban vote (which is strongly Democratic) because the rural voters fear vouchers will further reduce funding of their public schools (not too many charter schools in towns with only one high school).