[DoodleDawg]

Lower taxes means more soccer moms will be able to afford private or homeschool alternatives to the government school hell-holes.

A major problem with that is that it's a rural state. Most of the smaller towns don't have a private school alternative.

Besides, when did more spending ever lead to better schools?

When did cutting funding lead to better schools?

[Mr Rogers]

When did modest cuts in funding ever HURT schools?

[arista]

Lower taxes means more soccer moms will be able to afford private or homeschool alternatives to the government school hell-holes.

A major problem with that is that it's a rural state. Most of the smaller towns don't have a private school alternative.

By that logic we could also say that if a small town doesn't have a large enough population to justify more than one grocery store, it should therefore have a single grocery store owned and administered by the government that everyone is required to shop at. Sound ridiculous? That's the public school model.

If parents were given vouchers to have the option to send their kids to private schools, that would mean increased economic demand for alternatives. This increased demand would encourage entrepreneurs to create new alternative schools to fulfill the demand. If the only alternatives are small schools or much further away, parents could keep their kids in the public school if they wanted and they wouldn't be any worse off than they are today.

Besides, when did more spending ever lead to better schools?

When did cutting funding lead to better schools?

The cost per student at public schools is now over $10,000. Many private and parochial schools only spend $5,000 and get much better results. As long as the public schools aren't accountable to market forces like choice and competition, all the money in the world won't make them function well.