It’s hard to not feel despondent about it when you live in a state actively trying to do things to public education you don’t feel is good for the community. In Texas they just approved reading curriculum that’s included Bible lessons in it and to encourage districts to use it they tied funding to adopting it. Which is a big deal conside…
It’s hard to not feel despondent about it when you live in a state actively trying to do things to public education you don’t feel is good for the community. In Texas they just approved reading curriculum that’s included Bible lessons in it and to encourage districts to use it they tied funding to adopting it. Which is a big deal considering the legislature hasn’t given any increase in funding as the governor is adamant to pass vouchers.
I didn't know much about the voucher system until Propublica's coverage of Arizona's enactment of their system this past year. And yikes. The overall result is that people who were already paying for private school are getting compensated with taxpayer money, while those who were not currently attending private school but are interested have so many barriers to getting there that it's mostly not worth it. Your despondency is earned.
I know I’m terrified of what it will do to Texas. Not to mention you can start your own home school get the money and no accountability tied to it. Both my husband and I work in public education.
While you're absolutely right that private school parents are taxpayers too, I think we need to look at how Arizona's voucher program is playing out in practice. While these families absolutely have the right to send their children to private schools and are indeed taxpayers, the voucher program isn't fulfilling its stated purpose of expanding educational access to families who couldn't otherwise afford it.
The data from Arizona shows a pattern: the majority of voucher recipients are middle and upper-class families who were already sending their children to private schools. Meanwhile, many struggling families find they can't effectively use the vouchers despite technically having access to them.
First, the voucher often doesn't cover the full cost of private school tuition, leaving families to make up the difference. For middle and upper-class families already paying full tuition, the voucher acts as a welcome discount. But for families living paycheck to paycheck, even a partial tuition payment might be out of reach.
Second, there are numerous hidden costs beyond tuition. Transportation isn't provided to private schools, creating a significant barrier for working parents who rely on school bus service. Many private schools have additional fees for required books, uniforms, and technology. These expenses can add up to thousands of dollars that aren't covered by vouchers.
This stands in contrast to the original purpose of school vouchers, as articulated by the Heritage Foundation: to provide "options for low-income families" by breaking "the arbitrary link between a child's housing and the school he or she can attend." Instead of achieving these goals, the current system primarily benefits those who least need the assistance.
I do see your point that the vouchers don’t cover every aspect associated with making private school an option for everyone. As a family member of private school attendees, I can tell you not everyone attending comes from the either the middle or upper classes. Many come from families where both parents work (or single family households) who have made financial and schedule sacrifices elsewhere to afford these opportunities to their children. Many have made these sacrifices in order to move away from the mandated curriculums in the public school system. While the vouchers don’t provide the entire answer, they aren’t merely a “discount” for who you refer to as least needing them.
I appreciate you sharing your personal experience with private schools. Many families make significant sacrifices to afford private education, and I apologize if my use of the word "discount" came across as dismissive of those sacrifices.
I think we need to look at this issue from two angles. First, there's the individual level - where we see families like those you describe making admirable sacrifices to access private education. Then there's the systemic level - where we can examine whether Arizona's voucher program is achieving its stated goal of expanding access to private education for lower-income families who previously couldn't afford it.
The data from Arizona's program implementation tells us that despite the stated intention of helping lower-income families access private education, the program hasn't significantly increased private school accessibility for this demographic. While some working-class families could benefit, most are sidelined by forces outside of their control while the overwhelming majority of voucher users are families who were already in the private school system.
I don't think anyone is expecting perfection from the system, but if its primary effect is to subsidize existing private school attendance rather than expanding access to new families, we should at least be honest about that reality. The organizations backing these initiatives should drop the BS about helping lower income people, acknowledge that they are actually trying to help higher income people, while still supporting the program for other reasons - such as curriculum choice, which you mentioned as an important factor for many families.
Side note, there are many taxpayers, like me, who believe that receiving a taxpayer-funded education should come from the public school system, where you might not agree with everything being taught, but that's a tradeoff you can expect when gathering hundreds or thousands of kids together efficiently. We can't afford to educate every child in tiny bubbles of their parents' choosing with taxpayer money; that's where the private money should come in. I believe that a voucher system ultimately deprives resources from children who have no other option but attend a public school. But that's not really the argument I was trying to make, my opinion matters just as much as yours. (And as a childless dog dad, you might want to weigh the opinions of parents of humans more than me.)
My main point is that the lobbyists/legislators are saying one thing and doing another, which is unacceptable.
I get where your coming from. I do think that just bc both parents work doesn’t mean a family isn’t middle class or even upper class. Also if a private school tuition is $40k a year and a voucher is for $10k, but you only make 50k. No amount of shifting budgets is going to allow you to send your kid to school there. You still need to pay for a roof over your kid’s head, utilities, food, clothing and necessities.
My initial thought with regards to the “protected” civil service jobs, why not allow them to be equally managed as an other job sector employee. I have long thought many of the folks holding these types of positions have been “trained “ to be complacent especially those reaching a tenured level. Accountability should be expected not feared.
As a career civil servant we are “equally managed” as any other job and where you got the idea that we aren’t is propaganda. The majority of us who work for the federal government are hard workers who actually care about our jobs and do them to the best of our abilities. We are held to performance standards, just like anyone in a private sector job and in some positions we are held to a higher standard. We are required to be non-partisan in our decisions and if we are no longer “protected” then decisions can be made based upon political views. We undergo stringent background checks, some positions within IRS are audited every year - something that a regular citizen doesn’t have endure. Federal employees’ political activities are restricted by the Hatch Act - something regular citizens aren’t. Despite what certain groups like to proclaim federal employees are dedicated, knowledgeable, and hardworking - we aren’t lazy or just collecting a paycheck.
I am glad to hear your experience has been as it should be. I do t not, however, believe this is the case in all circumstances and tenant of these organizations could use a thorough review. If there is nothing to find, then so be it. N the flip side, what could a review hurt?
I absolutely agree with you that all employment needs to be coupled with accountability. However, the America First/MAGA movements are absolutely proving the point that civil service jobs need protection from political maneuvering. I would hope you'd agree that it's not good for our country to have the entire government - including IRS agents, FBI agents, EPA agents, and many, many others - replaced every four years in the name of political loyalty. It completely undermines both the need for career acumen and expertise as well as the stability of our country as a whole. As always with Trump and the MAGA movement, I believe they make some decent points, but I fear their motives and strategies.
I am certainly not for an every four year total replacement however I do believe many of these organizations could use a thorough review and evaluation. Of that means deleting unnecessary or underperforming staff, then so be it. It is a very real aspect of the private sector. Why shouldn’t we expect the same efficiency from all our tax dollars?
You and I agree that our tax dollars should be used efficiently and that people should be held accountable for good work. The difference between us is that you trust Trump and his administration to make the right call, and I don’t. Again, it’s theoretically a good idea, but I’ve never seen a good idea Trump can’t ruin by inserting himself in it.
This is very much NOT about efficiency and very much about getting rid of as many federal employees as possible. If it was about efficiency then instead of issuing all of these executive orders they would go into the agencies and see how the funds are being spent and see where changes can be made. Most (if not all) federal agencies are actually understaffed and federal employees have been asked to do more with less for years. Try to get through to an actual person at IRS or SSA or the VA, wait times are very high - not because federal employees aren’t working - but because there aren’t enough of them to handle the call volumes. I’m not against a “review”, I’m against the witch hunt it will turn out to be under this administration. It needs to be nonpartisan and not political.
Also a question for you - where are you getting your information that there are all these “government inefficiencies”? The media? A particular political party? GAO audits? Are you or have you ever been a federal employee? You probably should take a look at where you are getting your “information” and look for first person sources to ensure that the information is actually factual and not off the cuff rhetoric that will incite the masses.
It’s hard to not feel despondent about it when you live in a state actively trying to do things to public education you don’t feel is good for the community. In Texas they just approved reading curriculum that’s included Bible lessons in it and to encourage districts to use it they tied funding to adopting it. Which is a big deal considering the legislature hasn’t given any increase in funding as the governor is adamant to pass vouchers.
Yes, Melissa, it is a Big Bad Deal! And despondency is a valid emotion. But you are not alone. We are here with you and for you.
I didn't know much about the voucher system until Propublica's coverage of Arizona's enactment of their system this past year. And yikes. The overall result is that people who were already paying for private school are getting compensated with taxpayer money, while those who were not currently attending private school but are interested have so many barriers to getting there that it's mostly not worth it. Your despondency is earned.
Budget calamity:
https://www.propublica.org/article/arizona-school-vouchers-budget-meltdown
Inaccessibility for low income citizens:
https://www.propublica.org/article/arizona-school-vouchers-esa-private-schools
Schools shapeshifting to avoid accountability:
https://www.propublica.org/article/arizona-private-school-vouchers-no-transparency
I know I’m terrified of what it will do to Texas. Not to mention you can start your own home school get the money and no accountability tied to it. Both my husband and I work in public education.
The folks paying for private school other children also are taxpayers…
While you're absolutely right that private school parents are taxpayers too, I think we need to look at how Arizona's voucher program is playing out in practice. While these families absolutely have the right to send their children to private schools and are indeed taxpayers, the voucher program isn't fulfilling its stated purpose of expanding educational access to families who couldn't otherwise afford it.
The data from Arizona shows a pattern: the majority of voucher recipients are middle and upper-class families who were already sending their children to private schools. Meanwhile, many struggling families find they can't effectively use the vouchers despite technically having access to them.
First, the voucher often doesn't cover the full cost of private school tuition, leaving families to make up the difference. For middle and upper-class families already paying full tuition, the voucher acts as a welcome discount. But for families living paycheck to paycheck, even a partial tuition payment might be out of reach.
Second, there are numerous hidden costs beyond tuition. Transportation isn't provided to private schools, creating a significant barrier for working parents who rely on school bus service. Many private schools have additional fees for required books, uniforms, and technology. These expenses can add up to thousands of dollars that aren't covered by vouchers.
This stands in contrast to the original purpose of school vouchers, as articulated by the Heritage Foundation: to provide "options for low-income families" by breaking "the arbitrary link between a child's housing and the school he or she can attend." Instead of achieving these goals, the current system primarily benefits those who least need the assistance.
I do see your point that the vouchers don’t cover every aspect associated with making private school an option for everyone. As a family member of private school attendees, I can tell you not everyone attending comes from the either the middle or upper classes. Many come from families where both parents work (or single family households) who have made financial and schedule sacrifices elsewhere to afford these opportunities to their children. Many have made these sacrifices in order to move away from the mandated curriculums in the public school system. While the vouchers don’t provide the entire answer, they aren’t merely a “discount” for who you refer to as least needing them.
I appreciate you sharing your personal experience with private schools. Many families make significant sacrifices to afford private education, and I apologize if my use of the word "discount" came across as dismissive of those sacrifices.
I am basing my opinion on this investigation, and extrapolating that it will be common in areas other than Arizona if not enacted with a lot of changes outside of one piece of legislation: https://www.propublica.org/article/arizona-school-vouchers-esa-private-schools
I think we need to look at this issue from two angles. First, there's the individual level - where we see families like those you describe making admirable sacrifices to access private education. Then there's the systemic level - where we can examine whether Arizona's voucher program is achieving its stated goal of expanding access to private education for lower-income families who previously couldn't afford it.
The data from Arizona's program implementation tells us that despite the stated intention of helping lower-income families access private education, the program hasn't significantly increased private school accessibility for this demographic. While some working-class families could benefit, most are sidelined by forces outside of their control while the overwhelming majority of voucher users are families who were already in the private school system.
I don't think anyone is expecting perfection from the system, but if its primary effect is to subsidize existing private school attendance rather than expanding access to new families, we should at least be honest about that reality. The organizations backing these initiatives should drop the BS about helping lower income people, acknowledge that they are actually trying to help higher income people, while still supporting the program for other reasons - such as curriculum choice, which you mentioned as an important factor for many families.
Side note, there are many taxpayers, like me, who believe that receiving a taxpayer-funded education should come from the public school system, where you might not agree with everything being taught, but that's a tradeoff you can expect when gathering hundreds or thousands of kids together efficiently. We can't afford to educate every child in tiny bubbles of their parents' choosing with taxpayer money; that's where the private money should come in. I believe that a voucher system ultimately deprives resources from children who have no other option but attend a public school. But that's not really the argument I was trying to make, my opinion matters just as much as yours. (And as a childless dog dad, you might want to weigh the opinions of parents of humans more than me.)
My main point is that the lobbyists/legislators are saying one thing and doing another, which is unacceptable.
I get where your coming from. I do think that just bc both parents work doesn’t mean a family isn’t middle class or even upper class. Also if a private school tuition is $40k a year and a voucher is for $10k, but you only make 50k. No amount of shifting budgets is going to allow you to send your kid to school there. You still need to pay for a roof over your kid’s head, utilities, food, clothing and necessities.
I'm also from Texas; agree with all.
My initial thought with regards to the “protected” civil service jobs, why not allow them to be equally managed as an other job sector employee. I have long thought many of the folks holding these types of positions have been “trained “ to be complacent especially those reaching a tenured level. Accountability should be expected not feared.
As a career civil servant we are “equally managed” as any other job and where you got the idea that we aren’t is propaganda. The majority of us who work for the federal government are hard workers who actually care about our jobs and do them to the best of our abilities. We are held to performance standards, just like anyone in a private sector job and in some positions we are held to a higher standard. We are required to be non-partisan in our decisions and if we are no longer “protected” then decisions can be made based upon political views. We undergo stringent background checks, some positions within IRS are audited every year - something that a regular citizen doesn’t have endure. Federal employees’ political activities are restricted by the Hatch Act - something regular citizens aren’t. Despite what certain groups like to proclaim federal employees are dedicated, knowledgeable, and hardworking - we aren’t lazy or just collecting a paycheck.
I am glad to hear your experience has been as it should be. I do t not, however, believe this is the case in all circumstances and tenant of these organizations could use a thorough review. If there is nothing to find, then so be it. N the flip side, what could a review hurt?
I absolutely agree with you that all employment needs to be coupled with accountability. However, the America First/MAGA movements are absolutely proving the point that civil service jobs need protection from political maneuvering. I would hope you'd agree that it's not good for our country to have the entire government - including IRS agents, FBI agents, EPA agents, and many, many others - replaced every four years in the name of political loyalty. It completely undermines both the need for career acumen and expertise as well as the stability of our country as a whole. As always with Trump and the MAGA movement, I believe they make some decent points, but I fear their motives and strategies.
I am certainly not for an every four year total replacement however I do believe many of these organizations could use a thorough review and evaluation. Of that means deleting unnecessary or underperforming staff, then so be it. It is a very real aspect of the private sector. Why shouldn’t we expect the same efficiency from all our tax dollars?
You and I agree that our tax dollars should be used efficiently and that people should be held accountable for good work. The difference between us is that you trust Trump and his administration to make the right call, and I don’t. Again, it’s theoretically a good idea, but I’ve never seen a good idea Trump can’t ruin by inserting himself in it.
This is very much NOT about efficiency and very much about getting rid of as many federal employees as possible. If it was about efficiency then instead of issuing all of these executive orders they would go into the agencies and see how the funds are being spent and see where changes can be made. Most (if not all) federal agencies are actually understaffed and federal employees have been asked to do more with less for years. Try to get through to an actual person at IRS or SSA or the VA, wait times are very high - not because federal employees aren’t working - but because there aren’t enough of them to handle the call volumes. I’m not against a “review”, I’m against the witch hunt it will turn out to be under this administration. It needs to be nonpartisan and not political.
Also a question for you - where are you getting your information that there are all these “government inefficiencies”? The media? A particular political party? GAO audits? Are you or have you ever been a federal employee? You probably should take a look at where you are getting your “information” and look for first person sources to ensure that the information is actually factual and not off the cuff rhetoric that will incite the masses.