LibertarianLite
Rookie
- Jun 22, 2010
- 17
- 2
- 1
It's not like you're leaving impoverished kids in the dust. Like I said, thanks to taxes, each child between 5-18 would be allocated a sum of money that "follows" him or her. Schools, either public or private DO NOT get money unless THEY can make their programs attractive enough to compete for these kids and this money.
1. Aren't kids in public schools being left in the dust (impoverished or not)?
2. Why do parents have to meet some government bureaucrats requirement to get a chunk of their own money back to pay for their own child's education?
1. Um not they aren't. How did you derive that? All I said is that instead of schools getting money automatically no matter what, that public schools will get their money based on the kids they can attract to their school. Each child is allocated some sum of money and then based off of that, it pays for them to go to school.
2. There is no bureaucratic requirements and they don't get their money back. It really has nothing to do with the parents, it has to do with how schools are funded. Parents wouldn't see any money. I think it would be really efficient if it was done at a state level or lower. Instead of saying, "I live in xyz school district so I have to go here" the state says "we are not funding schools based on their vague needs and budget, we're funding them based on how many students want to go to that school." So if your school sucks, no one will want to go there and because no one goes there, you don't get funding that comes with each student and because you're stupid, you're "pushed out" because you cannot compete.
Last edited: