In fact, the public schools should actually come out ahead. In a typical voucher program, the cost of the voucher (say, $4,500) is far lower than the average amount the public schools spend on each student (say, $8,000). This means that when students go private, only part of the money budgeted for their education goes with them. The remainder stays in the government's pocket. If these savings were put back into the public schools, the schools would actually have more money per child. And the greater the number of students using vouchers, the greater the increase in spending per child could be. I'm in favor of school vouchers, but I'm not entirely sure this is a winning argument. If parents were given the option of using vouchers to send children to private schools, and those private schools produced superior results at a fraction of the cost of public schools, how long do you think it would be before the electorate demanded a reduction in funding for the public schools? And in fact, why should public schools be permitted to provide education at almost double the cost of private schools?
. If parents were given the option of using vouchers to send children to private schools, and those private schools produced superior results at a fraction of the cost of public schools, how long do you think it would be before the electorate demanded a reduction in funding for the public schools? Exactly why the teacher's unions are fighting so hard. They can't protect the bureaucrats and the incompetent without coercion.
The good teachers know this, too. They're not in any danger of being unemployed.