Smash said that they don't provide a better educational alternative. That people may use them for connections with other rich parents or for religious education or because they don't want their kid at school with colored folk but they aren't teaching 2+2=4 any better.
And yet, people who can afford to do so overwhelmingly choose to send their kids to private schools. One would assume they think they're getting their money's worth. And funny assumptions about racism aside, it's almost certainly because they believe that their children will have a better chance at success in life as a result. We can argue about *why* that is the case, but clearly it is.
So either all of those people are just wasting their money, or there is some value to those schools that just isn't present in the public school system.
The point is that if people consistently choose to spend money on private school when they have the choice and ability to spend their own money on such things, then why should we not spend public money on private school as well? It's clearly "better", right? Your position is like saying that instead of handing people with food insecurity food stamps and letting them buy the same food that the rest of us pay for, in the same food market, for the same prices, we should instead use the money to create a "government food store" in which we decide what food is best and provide a pre-selected allotment of food for each family based on their needs.
Surely you can see how that would become incredibly cost inefficient very quickly, right? And if we were to propose such a thing most of you would be jumping up and down shouting about how we're creating two classes of food eaters, and relegating the poor to the dregs of the food world, complete with insinuation about segregation and whatnot.
But somehow this is perfectly ok for education? Seriously. Stop and think about what you're arguing *for*. It makes no damn sense at all.
My point was that if someone wants to pay $30k for these other aspects, that's up to them.
And my point is that if someone is willing to pay $30k for that education, then they must think it's worth $30k because they are spending their own money
. You're arguing that someone who's spending someone else's money on behalf of someone else's kids will make a better choice somehow.
Again, that makes no sense at all.
So they question is "why limit that better education to just rich kids"?
Given that they don't provide a better education, I guess there's no question and no debate then. Glad we had this little chat.
Which is strange, given that "poor education choices" is usually at the top of the list of reasons why children of poor families can't get out of poverty and become successful. It's why they are at a disadvantage compared to "the rich kids". But now, and only now that we're arguing school vouchers, suddenly the argument is that those poor kids are getting just as good of an education as the kids in the rich neighborhoods?
Really? When did this become the liberal position on wealth and opportunity?