Why are Democrats against school choice?

School choice has exploded across the country over the past few years — no thanks to Democrats, who are doing everything they can to prevent families from determining the best education for their children.

One Democrat in Georgia even left her party over its opposition to a school choice package that would have created $6,500 vouchers for students in poor-performing public school districts. Mesha Mainor, who switched her party affiliation to the GOP this week, was the only Democrat in the state legislature to support the bill. She spent weeks urging her colleagues to reconsider their position, pointing out that the bill would primarily help low-income minority students whose families can’t afford to leave failing public schools. In response, Georgia Democrats vowed to oust Mainor from the legislature, with state Rep. Josh McLaurin offering $1,000 to anyone who agreed to primary her.

Are Democrats trying to keep the poor kids out of THIER schools?

This page is a permanent link to the reply below and its nested replies. See all post replies »

Thinkerbell · 41-45, F

"Are [rich] Democrats trying to keep the poor kids out of THIER schools?"

It's partly that, but it's also that Democrat politicians are in the teachers' unions' pockets.

The unions definitely do NOT want vouchers for private schools because tax money for vouchers would mean less tax money for the public schools, because there would be fewer students in them, and the unions can't have THAT, because that would mean less political influence.

NativePortlander1970

@Thinkerbell That, and less kids for statist indoctrination.

Thrust · 56-60, M

@Thinkerbell teaching kids right is the LAST priority of teacher's unions. Look at that horrid shrew Randi Weingarten. Evil wench

LeopoldBloom · M

@Thinkerbell Why should my taxes pay for private schools? Maybe your taxes should pay for abortions and gender surgery.

This comment is hidden. Show Comment

Thinkerbell · 41-45, F

@LeopoldBloom

"Why should my taxes pay for private schools?"

Your premise is wrong, Leo.

If I DON'T send my school-age kid to public school, I SAVE the school district money it would otherwise have to spend.

Average annual school spending per student in the US is about $16,000, of which about 79% is for staff salaries and benefits.
(Georgia happens to be quite close to that average, to cite a random example.)

https://nces.ed.gov/programs/coe/indicator/cmb

Let's just consider the salaries and benefits part, or about $12,600 annually; the rest is presumably for building maintenance, debt service, etc., which are much less flexible than personnel shifts in adjusting to changes in student body population.

So if I DON'T send my kid to public school, why DON'T I get at least a partial rebate (as a voucher) for the $12,600 I save the school district?

Answer: the teachers' union, which is as greedy as any evil corporation, wants that $12,600, no matter what, either to raise teacher salaries and/or to reduce their already very low workload, if my kid doesn't use the public school system.

Elementary, my dear Watson.

LeopoldBloom · M

@Thinkerbell Except, just as you benefit from public schools even if you don't have children, you also benefit from them if you send your children to private schools. For example, businesses don't have to teach new employees how to read as they already learned that, even if their parents couldn't afford to send them to private school. Since vouchers only cover a portion of private school costs, they're only a benefit to people wealthy enough to send their kids to private school in the first place. It's just another example of wealth transfer from the poor and middle class to the wealthy.

I don't go to church; can I get a voucher for the portion of my tax money that makes up for the fact that churches don't pay taxes?