Taxes and Choice/Charters

Tomorrow's Journal Sentinel has an article by Alan Borsuk describing the argument between the state teacher's union and supporters of choice and charters about funding for those schools ("Choice program debate turns fiscal"). Despite the many convolutions in the state funding formulas, the argument basically depends on assumptions about where the children from these schools would go if the choice and charter programs were eliminated.

The teacher's union assumes that most would not choose the public schools, betraying a striking lack of faith in public education. By supporting fewer students the taxpayers would be ahead, in WEAC's view. If, however, most moved to the more expensive public schools (either because they found the public schools acceptable or felt they had no other choice), taxes would rise.

The possibilities implied by the WEAC strategy of cutting taxes by reducing the number of students educated at public expense have barely been scratched. Rather than lamenting the dropout rate, for example, this logic implies it should be applauded for reducing the amount taxpayers must spend on education.

Here are links to the first and second fiscal bureau reports.