Replies

I would have thought the requirement that a voucher 'cover' an entire year of private tuition (which is presumably much more costly than the public system spends) would tend to drive a private school bankrupt.

Raises a good point which needs to be addressed: Vouchers do not need to cover full tuition and states should not require they do.

It is better to have parents pay something.

The Children's Scholarship Fund gives out over 40,000 scholarships to lower income parents (under 25K I believe) a year. They only cover 50% of the tuition. Yet over 1 million parents apply for the scholarships.

Parents without much money are just like any other parent, they love their kids and will sacrifice for them. They can pick up a second job for a while, find some at home business to start--a few grand more a year in income is doable. And when parents do that, you know they will take a keen interest in seeing their kids do not slack off.

LarryLied's post:
Vouchers do not need to cover full tuition and states should not require they do.

Whereas from post#69
Accept the opportunity scholarship amount provided by the state as full tuition and fees for each student.

So that aspect of post#69 is wrong? If a private tution exceeeds the value of the voucher, a parent can kick in the rest?