I had a much longer, response I accidentally deleted. But if I can re-create-MDlaxfan76 wrote: ↑Mon Oct 24, 2022 2:41 pmhmmm, I see your logic, but the proportion of challenges to the overall student body does matter. It's not as simple as just the straight body count. That's more so the issues around behavior, but often that's driven by frustrations around learning issues, issues that are often not diagnosed or addressed.kramerica.inc wrote: ↑Mon Oct 24, 2022 2:13 pmI'd beg to clarify on a few points.MDlaxfan76 wrote: ↑Mon Oct 24, 2022 11:51 amI don't think this applies to you at all, but I suspect you understand how this logic was used to justify segregation.kramerica.inc wrote: ↑Mon Oct 24, 2022 11:22 am I'm pretty well-read on education issues.
Resistance to integration in public schools?
In what way?
I think you may have misunderstood my point.
I understand that you're just talking about parents who send their kids to private school getting a deduction.
But that's all such parents...eg my family, with exception of my wife, all private in my parents' and my generation.
I never saw sending my son to Gilman as benefiting society because I wasn't burdening the public school system...sure, I'd hope/expect that he'll end up a very productive member of society and a benefit that way, but I never expected the public tax payers to give me an extra break because we chose that path for him. I did it because we thought it was optimal for him and we prioritized that investment over other choices. I continue to donate to the school so that they can provide scholarships for poor kids to have that opportunity as well.
Moreover, I'm not so sure it wasn't a cost to the public school in our region for him to not be there, rather than the other way around...I have no doubt that he'd have contributed significantly to any classroom and to any other activity in the life of the school...we'd have been equally as involved as parents in ensuring the quality of the environment, the support for teaching excellence, etc as we were at Gilman...on net, a positive even.
But public school education costs, per student, are a small fraction of the costs that Gilman expends per student. Dramatically different facilities, technology, teacher pay, etc, etc. The tuition itself, which is much larger than the per student cost of public schools, covers only a portion of the overall annual budget...close to half that cost comes through alumni annual donations and endowment draw.
And that's with a school that is able to self-select students that generally conform within a set of expected capabilities that enable more efficient delivery of education. Little remedial education needed, little behavioral issues tolerated. More efficient...but still way more cost expended.
so, if we provide $ incentives to remove from public schools those who are best positioned to conform to private school selection, we increase the density of the most costly student situations...and removed the positive contributions such students make to the classrooms, school life, critical mass, etc.
Just as we made the choice for our own family, as a taxpayer citizen I'm for prioritizing education as a community, as a state, as a country, over all sorts of other potential investments we can make.
IMO, that's our problem, we don't prioritize this investment sufficiently.
Your point re: density of costly students. The ratio of "costly" students changes for the school system, but the number of those students doesn't increase and negatively impact your budget or staffing/facility plans. Those are the same students that were there before. The group of less-costly students then have smaller group sizes to deal with. Arguably a benefit to those kids. Unfortunately, the effects of costly vs uncostly student ratio is only a hypothesis.
You are not lowering the amount you are spending on schools or education by giving a tax break. The quality of EVERY school system is measured in per pupil spend, student/teacher ratio and schools on capacity. ALL of those things are PROVEN to have a positive, measurable benefit on student success. Documented. In this case, you are actually increasing the per-student spending with a tax cut that is less than the per pupil spend. That excess money goes back to the school system and IMPROVES the MEASURABLE population categories I mentioned above.
The issue most certainly is simple supply, demand and budget. That's why student success is again measured in per pupil spend, student/teacher ratio and schools on capacity. Yearly, the biggest concerns of EVERY district in MD and VA has been growing enrollment, over capacity schools, outdated/crumbling facilities, increasing student to teacher ratios, and inefficient use of facilities. Most school districts in the NE region cant keep up with infrastructure, and school improvement/building as it currently sits. That's been exacerbated with the materials shortage. Lessening the number of students that need to be served only helps the public school system. Incentivising people to take the leap to private schools would significantly benefit local school systems and budgets.
Sure, spending more per student is a great proxy for likely success or "quality". But just a proxy.
And if the more spending is because overhead costs are now being applied to fewer students then that's obviously of no real benefit to student learning
But we agree on far more than we disagree.
We do agree more than we disagree. Lowering the number of students and maintaining the positive tax growth is simply good practice. And at the heart of every school quality discussion is equity of resources. Per pupil spend.
Per pupil spend isn't limited to just overhead. It's all encompassing,- school improvements, student resources, teacher salaries etc. Those trickle down into student-to-teacher ratio and deeper looks- Is there the same ratio of "highly qualified?" Has each school been updated/renovated/rebuilt within a recent timeframe and give students a place they want to go? Is it a modern, updated facility? Etc. etc. So again, it all comes down to per-pupil spending. MEASURABLE numbers.
As for the UChicago article, it's quality for it's historical perspective, but it's 2-3 generations old at this point and the country has changed significantly demographically. White flight has already occurred and the percentage of white americans dropped significantly (as part of the total population percentage) in the time since written.
Re: private school breaks in the tax code, tax payers (including all the bigots and racists) can not opt out of supporting public schools. Again, ensuring the tax break is less than half the per pupil spend, ensures public schools ARE supported and supported well. Additionally, the 529 has gained popularity and use. That was the first shoe to drop for federal support of private school tax breaks. Saying yearly tax breaks from the IRS will never happen is a hope and not grounded in reality.