U.S. government sues to block vouchers in some Louisiana school systems

[Flopper]

My question is why doesn't the State close the failing schools? Aren't they enabling this shit.

Schools fail because of lack of funding. Fund the schools if you want better education.

Typical liberal response, check the funding behind some of the most miserable school systems in the country, many are receiving more per student than some of the best in the country. Utah is a great example of getting better results with some of the lowest per student spending. Quality parents and teachers are more important than money.

"check the funding behind some of the most miserable school systems in the country, many are receiving more per student than some of the best in the country."
I certainly agree with that statement. Poor performing schools which are usually schools filled with kids from low income families in high crime areas are loaded with special ed. kids with Emotional and Behavior Disorders, Intellectual Disabilities, Learning Disabilities, requiring special attention remedial education, early intervention programs, vocational cooperative work programs, increased security for staff and students, and in many cases lower class sizes. For these and other reasons per pupil cost in such schools can easily be 50% higher the best schools in a district. Cities and states with large numbers of such schools will have high costs.

 

[Unkotare]

Why should they fund failed public schools when there is a viable alternative. Are you afraid the public schools couldn't compete, or are you afraid that the teachers' unions would be decimated and unable to contribute to Democrat candidates?

Isn't the viable alternative the reason some believe that we have failed public schools? ?

If by "some " you mean idiots like you.

 

[bripat9643]

I have very little problem with the voucher system. If this gives students a better chance at success in life than I am all for it.

It's the individual that makes success, not the school or the voucher. The voucher program was invented by Republicans to shuffle taxpayer funds to private companies.

IF the schools don't matter, then why not just dispose of them?

 

[OKTexas]

My question is why doesn't the State close the failing schools? Aren't they enabling this shit.

Schools fail because of lack of funding. Fund the schools if you want better education.

Typical liberal response, check the funding behind some of the most miserable school systems in the country, many are receiving more per student than some of the best in the country. Utah is a great example of getting better results with some of the lowest per student spending. Quality parents and teachers are more important than money.

"check the funding behind some of the most miserable school systems in the country, many are receiving more per student than some of the best in the country."
I certainly agree with that statement. Poor performing schools which are usually schools filled with kids from low income families in high crime areas are loaded with special ed. kids with Emotional and Behavior Disorders, Intellectual Disabilities, Learning Disabilities, requiring special attention remedial education, early intervention programs, vocational cooperative work programs, increased security for staff and students, and in many cases lower class sizes. For these and other reasons per pupil cost in such schools can easily be 50% higher the best schools in a district. Cities and states with large numbers of such schools will have high costs.

I think you would agree that TX has high numbers of ESL and poor students yet according to numbers you posted earlier in the thread they have much better results than many of the highest spending states and TX spends well less than half per student than many of those states. And don't get me wrong TX could do better, but to get those improvements it would have to start in the home, not with more money.

 

[Flopper]

Force the vouchers to take ALL kids, even those that have a history of disrupting the classroom. If they can't make all the kids scholars as some of the idiots who could never teach want,. Then close the school. Anyone who blames only the schools and teachers is a total idiot who thinks that the kids just show up and yearn to learn. I wouldn't be a teacher down there(Louisiana or Alabama or Mississippi, etch) because they are so far behind the times its kinda sad. Send all the problem children to the voucher schools and by no means can they be expelled no matter what they do. Then let's see how it goes.

You clearly don't understand the purpose of vouchers which is to lower the cost of private school tuition for middle and upper income families by sucking off funds from public schools which will be serving low income and social disadvantaged students, the hardest and most expensive students to educate.

 

[Flopper]

My question is why doesn't the State close the failing schools? Aren't they enabling this shit.

Schools fail because of lack of funding. Fund the schools if you want better education.

Typical liberal response, check the funding behind some of the most miserable school systems in the country, many are receiving more per student than some of the best in the country. Utah is a great example of getting better results with some of the lowest per student spending. Quality parents and teachers are more important than money.

"check the funding behind some of the most miserable school systems in the country, many are receiving more per student than some of the best in the country."
I certainly agree with that statement. Poor performing schools which are usually schools filled with kids from low income families in high crime areas are loaded with special ed. kids with Emotional and Behavior Disorders, Intellectual Disabilities, Learning Disabilities, requiring special attention remedial education, early intervention programs, vocational cooperative work programs, increased security for staff and students, and in many cases lower class sizes. For these and other reasons per pupil cost in such schools can easily be 50% higher the best schools in a district. Cities and states with large numbers of such schools will have high costs.

I think you would agree that TX has high numbers of ESL and poor students yet according to numbers you posted earlier in the thread they have much better results than many of the highest spending states and TX spends well less than half per student than many of those states. And don't get me wrong TX could do better, but to get those improvements it would have to start in the home, not with more money.

Yes, Texas has done better than a number of states with higher per pupil spending and they have done exceeding well considering the amount they are spending per pupil, particularly in graduation rates. When you look at highest and lowest ranked states, it becomes clear that there's a correlation between higher funding and student performance.

Every state is different in regard to student demographics, state requirements, and the cost of living which have a major influence on the cost of education. A state like Alaska with a high cost living, the highest percent of American Indians, teacher turnover as high 52% in rural areas, and extremely high maintenance and student transportation costs has the highest per pupil cost in the nation. Colorado's low costs are attribute to number of programs which shift fees to parents that most states pay such as, sports, advanced placement classes, transportation, and a host of other costs. Colorado has also been successful in cutting many costly special ed. services to private schools.

Analysis How Much States Spend on Their Kids Really Does Matter - NationalJournal.com

 

[bripat9643]

Force the vouchers to take ALL kids, even those that have a history of disrupting the classroom. If they can't make all the kids scholars as some of the idiots who could never teach want,. Then close the school. Anyone who blames only the schools and teachers is a total idiot who thinks that the kids just show up and yearn to learn. I wouldn't be a teacher down there(Louisiana or Alabama or Mississippi, etch) because they are so far behind the times its kinda sad. Send all the problem children to the voucher schools and by no means can they be expelled no matter what they do. Then let's see how it goes.

You clearly don't understand the purpose of vouchers which is to lower the cost of private school tuition for middle and upper income families by sucking off funds from public schools which will be serving low income and social disadvantaged students, the hardest and most expensive students to educate.

The purpose of vouchers is to give lower class students the chance to get a quality education rather than the fair on tap at inner-city public schools. Any other claims are pure propaganda.

 

[bripat9643]

My question is why doesn't the State close the failing schools? Aren't they enabling this shit.

Schools fail because of lack of funding. Fund the schools if you want better education.

Typical liberal response, check the funding behind some of the most miserable school systems in the country, many are receiving more per student than some of the best in the country. Utah is a great example of getting better results with some of the lowest per student spending. Quality parents and teachers are more important than money.

"check the funding behind some of the most miserable school systems in the country, many are receiving more per student than some of the best in the country."
I certainly agree with that statement. Poor performing schools which are usually schools filled with kids from low income families in high crime areas are loaded with special ed. kids with Emotional and Behavior Disorders, Intellectual Disabilities, Learning Disabilities, requiring special attention remedial education, early intervention programs, vocational cooperative work programs, increased security for staff and students, and in many cases lower class sizes. For these and other reasons per pupil cost in such schools can easily be 50% higher the best schools in a district. Cities and states with large numbers of such schools will have high costs.

I think you would agree that TX has high numbers of ESL and poor students yet according to numbers you posted earlier in the thread they have much better results than many of the highest spending states and TX spends well less than half per student than many of those states. And don't get me wrong TX could do better, but to get those improvements it would have to start in the home, not with more money.

Yes, Texas has done better than a number of states with higher per pupil spending and they have done exceeding well considering the amount they are spending per pupil, particularly in graduation rates. When you look at highest and lowest ranked states, it becomes clear that there's a correlation between higher funding and student performance.

Every state is different in regard to student demographics, state requirements, and the cost of living which have a major influence on the cost of education. A state like Alaska with a high cost living, the highest percent of American Indians, teacher turnover as high 52% in rural areas, and extremely high maintenance and student transportation costs has the highest per pupil cost in the nation. Colorado's low costs are attribute to number of programs which shift fees to parents that most states pay such as, sports, advanced placement classes, transportation, and a host of other costs. Colorado has also been successful in cutting many costly special ed. services to private schools.

View attachment 40649

Analysis How Much States Spend on Their Kids Really Does Matter - NationalJournal.com

I don't see much of a correlation with spending. However, I do note that the highest performing states are all Lilly white, whereas the lowest performing states all have large minority populations.

 

[Flopper]

Force the vouchers to take ALL kids, even those that have a history of disrupting the classroom. If they can't make all the kids scholars as some of the idiots who could never teach want,. Then close the school. Anyone who blames only the schools and teachers is a total idiot who thinks that the kids just show up and yearn to learn. I wouldn't be a teacher down there(Louisiana or Alabama or Mississippi, etch) because they are so far behind the times its kinda sad. Send all the problem children to the voucher schools and by no means can they be expelled no matter what they do. Then let's see how it goes.

You clearly don't understand the purpose of vouchers which is to lower the cost of private school tuition for middle and upper income families by sucking off funds from public schools which will be serving low income and social disadvantaged students, the hardest and most expensive students to educate.

The purpose of vouchers is to give lower class students the chance to get a quality education rather than the fair on tap at inner-city public schools. Any other claims are pure propaganda.

Yep, that's the party line.

 

[Kosh]

My question is why doesn't the State close the failing schools? Aren't they enabling this shit.

Schools fail because of lack of funding. Fund the schools if you want better education.

Typical liberal response, check the funding behind some of the most miserable school systems in the country, many are receiving more per student than some of the best in the country. Utah is a great example of getting better results with some of the lowest per student spending. Quality parents and teachers are more important than money.

"check the funding behind some of the most miserable school systems in the country, many are receiving more per student than some of the best in the country."
I certainly agree with that statement. Poor performing schools which are usually schools filled with kids from low income families in high crime areas are loaded with special ed. kids with Emotional and Behavior Disorders, Intellectual Disabilities, Learning Disabilities, requiring special attention remedial education, early intervention programs, vocational cooperative work programs, increased security for staff and students, and in many cases lower class sizes. For these and other reasons per pupil cost in such schools can easily be 50% higher the best schools in a district. Cities and states with large numbers of such schools will have high costs.

Cool so can we finally do away with unions?

 

[Ernie S.]

Why should they fund failed public schools when there is a viable alternative. Are you afraid the public schools couldn't compete, or are you afraid that the teachers' unions would be decimated and unable to contribute to Democrat candidates?

Isn't the viable alternative the reason some believe that we have failed public schools? The question you have to ask yourself is where you went to school, and didn't you turn out well?

I went to public school before multiculturalism, the US Department of Education and public sector labor unions.
I turned out OK, I guess. My kids went to school after all that and they did OK in spite of it, but they had to unlearn a bunch of crap.

 

[Ernie S.]

My question is why doesn't the State close the failing schools? Aren't they enabling this shit.

Schools fail because of lack of funding. Fund the schools if you want better education.

Typical liberal response, check the funding behind some of the most miserable school systems in the country, many are receiving more per student than some of the best in the country. Utah is a great example of getting better results with some of the lowest per student spending. Quality parents and teachers are more important than money.

"check the funding behind some of the most miserable school systems in the country, many are receiving more per student than some of the best in the country."
I certainly agree with that statement. Poor performing schools which are usually schools filled with kids from low income families in high crime areas are loaded with special ed. kids with Emotional and Behavior Disorders, Intellectual Disabilities, Learning Disabilities, requiring special attention remedial education, early intervention programs, vocational cooperative work programs, increased security for staff and students, and in many cases lower class sizes. For these and other reasons per pupil cost in such schools can easily be 50% higher the best schools in a district. Cities and states with large numbers of such schools will have high costs.

Emotional and Behavior Disorders, Intellectual Disabilities and Learning Disabilities aren't restricted to low income cities. I'd bet Mesa AZ has just about the same percentage of special needs kids as Detroit and yet they graduate 3 times as many HS students for 1/3 the $/pupil.

 

[Flopper]

Schools fail because of lack of funding. Fund the schools if you want better education.

Typical liberal response, check the funding behind some of the most miserable school systems in the country, many are receiving more per student than some of the best in the country. Utah is a great example of getting better results with some of the lowest per student spending. Quality parents and teachers are more important than money.

"check the funding behind some of the most miserable school systems in the country, many are receiving more per student than some of the best in the country."
I certainly agree with that statement. Poor performing schools which are usually schools filled with kids from low income families in high crime areas are loaded with special ed. kids with Emotional and Behavior Disorders, Intellectual Disabilities, Learning Disabilities, requiring special attention remedial education, early intervention programs, vocational cooperative work programs, increased security for staff and students, and in many cases lower class sizes. For these and other reasons per pupil cost in such schools can easily be 50% higher the best schools in a district. Cities and states with large numbers of such schools will have high costs.

I think you would agree that TX has high numbers of ESL and poor students yet according to numbers you posted earlier in the thread they have much better results than many of the highest spending states and TX spends well less than half per student than many of those states. And don't get me wrong TX could do better, but to get those improvements it would have to start in the home, not with more money.

Yes, Texas has done better than a number of states with higher per pupil spending and they have done exceeding well considering the amount they are spending per pupil, particularly in graduation rates. When you look at highest and lowest ranked states, it becomes clear that there's a correlation between higher funding and student performance.

Every state is different in regard to student demographics, state requirements, and the cost of living which have a major influence on the cost of education. A state like Alaska with a high cost living, the highest percent of American Indians, teacher turnover as high 52% in rural areas, and extremely high maintenance and student transportation costs has the highest per pupil cost in the nation. Colorado's low costs are attribute to number of programs which shift fees to parents that most states pay such as, sports, advanced placement classes, transportation, and a host of other costs. Colorado has also been successful in cutting many costly special ed. services to private schools.

View attachment 40649

Analysis How Much States Spend on Their Kids Really Does Matter - NationalJournal.com

I don't see much of a correlation with spending. However, I do note that the highest performing states are all Lilly white, whereas the lowest performing states all have large minority populations.

.Of the top 10 states ranked highest, four were among the nation’s highest per-pupil spenders. Of the 10 states that spent the least, only one ranked in top 50%.

 

[Ernie S.]

Force the vouchers to take ALL kids, even those that have a history of disrupting the classroom. If they can't make all the kids scholars as some of the idiots who could never teach want,. Then close the school. Anyone who blames only the schools and teachers is a total idiot who thinks that the kids just show up and yearn to learn. I wouldn't be a teacher down there(Louisiana or Alabama or Mississippi, etch) because they are so far behind the times its kinda sad. Send all the problem children to the voucher schools and by no means can they be expelled no matter what they do. Then let's see how it goes.

You clearly don't understand the purpose of vouchers which is to lower the cost of private school tuition for middle and upper income families by sucking off funds from public schools which will be serving low income and social disadvantaged students, the hardest and most expensive students to educate.

Everyone pays taxes to send kids to school. Why should parents who want a quality education for their kids pay twice? Hell I pay taxes to send kids in Alabama to school and my youngest kid is 31 and all were educated in Connecticut.

Tell me! Why are low income and socially disadvantaged kids harder to educate? Are you saying they're stupid, you racist fuck?

 

[Ernie S.]

Typical liberal response, check the funding behind some of the most miserable school systems in the country, many are receiving more per student than some of the best in the country. Utah is a great example of getting better results with some of the lowest per student spending. Quality parents and teachers are more important than money.

"check the funding behind some of the most miserable school systems in the country, many are receiving more per student than some of the best in the country."
I certainly agree with that statement. Poor performing schools which are usually schools filled with kids from low income families in high crime areas are loaded with special ed. kids with Emotional and Behavior Disorders, Intellectual Disabilities, Learning Disabilities, requiring special attention remedial education, early intervention programs, vocational cooperative work programs, increased security for staff and students, and in many cases lower class sizes. For these and other reasons per pupil cost in such schools can easily be 50% higher the best schools in a district. Cities and states with large numbers of such schools will have high costs.

I think you would agree that TX has high numbers of ESL and poor students yet according to numbers you posted earlier in the thread they have much better results than many of the highest spending states and TX spends well less than half per student than many of those states. And don't get me wrong TX could do better, but to get those improvements it would have to start in the home, not with more money.

Yes, Texas has done better than a number of states with higher per pupil spending and they have done exceeding well considering the amount they are spending per pupil, particularly in graduation rates. When you look at highest and lowest ranked states, it becomes clear that there's a correlation between higher funding and student performance.

Every state is different in regard to student demographics, state requirements, and the cost of living which have a major influence on the cost of education. A state like Alaska with a high cost living, the highest percent of American Indians, teacher turnover as high 52% in rural areas, and extremely high maintenance and student transportation costs has the highest per pupil cost in the nation. Colorado's low costs are attribute to number of programs which shift fees to parents that most states pay such as, sports, advanced placement classes, transportation, and a host of other costs. Colorado has also been successful in cutting many costly special ed. services to private schools.

View attachment 40649

Analysis How Much States Spend on Their Kids Really Does Matter - NationalJournal.com

I don't see much of a correlation with spending. However, I do note that the highest performing states are all Lilly white, whereas the lowest performing states all have large minority populations.

.Of the top 10 states ranked highest, four were among the nation’s highest per-pupil spenders. Of the 10 states that spent the least, only one ranked in top 50%.

Not on my list.

 

[bripat9643]

Typical liberal response, check the funding behind some of the most miserable school systems in the country, many are receiving more per student than some of the best in the country. Utah is a great example of getting better results with some of the lowest per student spending. Quality parents and teachers are more important than money.

"check the funding behind some of the most miserable school systems in the country, many are receiving more per student than some of the best in the country."
I certainly agree with that statement. Poor performing schools which are usually schools filled with kids from low income families in high crime areas are loaded with special ed. kids with Emotional and Behavior Disorders, Intellectual Disabilities, Learning Disabilities, requiring special attention remedial education, early intervention programs, vocational cooperative work programs, increased security for staff and students, and in many cases lower class sizes. For these and other reasons per pupil cost in such schools can easily be 50% higher the best schools in a district. Cities and states with large numbers of such schools will have high costs.

I think you would agree that TX has high numbers of ESL and poor students yet according to numbers you posted earlier in the thread they have much better results than many of the highest spending states and TX spends well less than half per student than many of those states. And don't get me wrong TX could do better, but to get those improvements it would have to start in the home, not with more money.

Yes, Texas has done better than a number of states with higher per pupil spending and they have done exceeding well considering the amount they are spending per pupil, particularly in graduation rates. When you look at highest and lowest ranked states, it becomes clear that there's a correlation between higher funding and student performance.

Every state is different in regard to student demographics, state requirements, and the cost of living which have a major influence on the cost of education. A state like Alaska with a high cost living, the highest percent of American Indians, teacher turnover as high 52% in rural areas, and extremely high maintenance and student transportation costs has the highest per pupil cost in the nation. Colorado's low costs are attribute to number of programs which shift fees to parents that most states pay such as, sports, advanced placement classes, transportation, and a host of other costs. Colorado has also been successful in cutting many costly special ed. services to private schools.

View attachment 40649

Analysis How Much States Spend on Their Kids Really Does Matter - NationalJournal.com

I don't see much of a correlation with spending. However, I do note that the highest performing states are all Lilly white, whereas the lowest performing states all have large minority populations.

.Of the top 10 states ranked highest, four were among the nation’s highest per-pupil spenders. Of the 10 states that spent the least, only one ranked in top 50%.

"rated highest" by whom? Statistical analysis done on the graph of performance vs money spent shows no correlation. The correlation with race of the students is far stronger. You deliberately ignored that point.

 

[Flopper]

My question is why doesn't the State close the failing schools? Aren't they enabling this shit.

Schools fail because of lack of funding. Fund the schools if you want better education.

Typical liberal response, check the funding behind some of the most miserable school systems in the country, many are receiving more per student than some of the best in the country. Utah is a great example of getting better results with some of the lowest per student spending. Quality parents and teachers are more important than money.

"check the funding behind some of the most miserable school systems in the country, many are receiving more per student than some of the best in the country."
I certainly agree with that statement. Poor performing schools which are usually schools filled with kids from low income families in high crime areas are loaded with special ed. kids with Emotional and Behavior Disorders, Intellectual Disabilities, Learning Disabilities, requiring special attention remedial education, early intervention programs, vocational cooperative work programs, increased security for staff and students, and in many cases lower class sizes. For these and other reasons per pupil cost in such schools can easily be 50% higher the best schools in a district. Cities and states with large numbers of such schools will have high costs.

Emotional and Behavior Disorders, Intellectual Disabilities and Learning Disabilities aren't restricted to low income cities. I'd bet Mesa AZ has just about the same percentage of special needs kids as Detroit and yet they graduate 3 times as many HS students for 1/3 the $/pupil.

I can't believe,you're comparing the cost of educating students in Mesa, Az. with Detroit, MI.
The family income in Mesa is $43,256 and $23,600 in Detroit.
The Murder rate in Mesa is 5/100,000 and 45/100,000 in Detroit, the city with highest crime rate in the nation.

In Detroit Public Schools, one in every 5 students is in special education, one of the highest rates in the nation. Detroit Public Schools has lost 1/3 of it's student population mostly to charter schools leaving the most difficult students to educate, a mountain of debt, and insufficient funding. This is exactly what can happen to public schools across the country if voters allow government to use vouchers to suck off the best students and funding from public schools.

 

[Flopper]

"check the funding behind some of the most miserable school systems in the country, many are receiving more per student than some of the best in the country."
I certainly agree with that statement. Poor performing schools which are usually schools filled with kids from low income families in high crime areas are loaded with special ed. kids with Emotional and Behavior Disorders, Intellectual Disabilities, Learning Disabilities, requiring special attention remedial education, early intervention programs, vocational cooperative work programs, increased security for staff and students, and in many cases lower class sizes. For these and other reasons per pupil cost in such schools can easily be 50% higher the best schools in a district. Cities and states with large numbers of such schools will have high costs.

I think you would agree that TX has high numbers of ESL and poor students yet according to numbers you posted earlier in the thread they have much better results than many of the highest spending states and TX spends well less than half per student than many of those states. And don't get me wrong TX could do better, but to get those improvements it would have to start in the home, not with more money.

Yes, Texas has done better than a number of states with higher per pupil spending and they have done exceeding well considering the amount they are spending per pupil, particularly in graduation rates. When you look at highest and lowest ranked states, it becomes clear that there's a correlation between higher funding and student performance.

Every state is different in regard to student demographics, state requirements, and the cost of living which have a major influence on the cost of education. A state like Alaska with a high cost living, the highest percent of American Indians, teacher turnover as high 52% in rural areas, and extremely high maintenance and student transportation costs has the highest per pupil cost in the nation. Colorado's low costs are attribute to number of programs which shift fees to parents that most states pay such as, sports, advanced placement classes, transportation, and a host of other costs. Colorado has also been successful in cutting many costly special ed. services to private schools.

View attachment 40649

Analysis How Much States Spend on Their Kids Really Does Matter - NationalJournal.com

I don't see much of a correlation with spending. However, I do note that the highest performing states are all Lilly white, whereas the lowest performing states all have large minority populations.

.Of the top 10 states ranked highest, four were among the nation’s highest per-pupil spenders. Of the 10 states that spent the least, only one ranked in top 50%.

"rated highest" by whom? Statistical analysis done on the graph of performance vs money spent shows no correlation. The correlation with race of the students is far stronger. You deliberately ignored that point.

And how is race relevant to the discussion?

 

[Unkotare]

This is exactly what can happen to public schools across the country if voters allow government to use vouchers to suck off the best students and funding from public schools.

"Allow"? "Suck off the best students"?


Could you possibly miss the fucking point any more completely?

 

[Ernie S.]

My question is why doesn't the State close the failing schools? Aren't they enabling this shit.

Schools fail because of lack of funding. Fund the schools if you want better education.

Typical liberal response, check the funding behind some of the most miserable school systems in the country, many are receiving more per student than some of the best in the country. Utah is a great example of getting better results with some of the lowest per student spending. Quality parents and teachers are more important than money.

"check the funding behind some of the most miserable school systems in the country, many are receiving more per student than some of the best in the country."
I certainly agree with that statement. Poor performing schools which are usually schools filled with kids from low income families in high crime areas are loaded with special ed. kids with Emotional and Behavior Disorders, Intellectual Disabilities, Learning Disabilities, requiring special attention remedial education, early intervention programs, vocational cooperative work programs, increased security for staff and students, and in many cases lower class sizes. For these and other reasons per pupil cost in such schools can easily be 50% higher the best schools in a district. Cities and states with large numbers of such schools will have high costs.

Emotional and Behavior Disorders, Intellectual Disabilities and Learning Disabilities aren't restricted to low income cities. I'd bet Mesa AZ has just about the same percentage of special needs kids as Detroit and yet they graduate 3 times as many HS students for 1/3 the $/pupil.

I can't believe,you're comparing the cost of educating students in Mesa, Az. with Detroit, MI.
The family income in Mesa is $43,256 and $23,600 in Detroit.
The Murder rate in Mesa is 5/100,000 and 45/100,000 in Detroit, the city with highest crime rate in the nation.

In Detroit Public Schools, one in every 5 students is in special education, one of the highest rates in the nation. Detroit Public Schools has lost 1/3 of it's student population mostly to charter schools leaving the most difficult students to educate, a mountain of debt, and insufficient funding. This is exactly what can happen to public schools across the country if voters allow government to use vouchers to suck off the best students and funding from public schools.

That doesn't explain why it costs 3 times as much unless you're saying people who live in Detroit are incapable of learning. Are you a racist?

What will happen with vouchers is that parents who care will send their teachable kids to private schools where they will get an education that will prepare them for the real world. Public schools will see that their system is a failure and either adapt or close.

The first step in solving any problem is proposing a new solution. To say that public education since the beginning of HEW has deteriorated would be an understatement.
Throwing more money at public schools is like filling the gas tank of a car with a blown engine.