Tuesday, November 29, 2005

Texas Surpreme Court Endorses School Choice

In today's Wall Street Journal there is an editorial on how the Texas Surpreme Court rejected a statewide property tax to fund education. But it went farther than that when it said that "more money does not guarantee better schools or more educated students." Of course, this is in Texas, those right-wing whackos. Here is some additional ammunition to support vouchers:
The Texas Public Policy Foundation, which provided much of the academic research for the court, looked at the Edgewood school district in San Antonio, where donors started a privately financed voucher program. The results indicate that not only have the kids with the vouchers benefited, but so have kids in the public schools that are now forced to compete for students

My emphasis added. Wow, so when teachers think their jobs could be in jeopardy they perform better? What a revelation! I think I remember hearding something on this, maybe in econ 101... was it called competition? While the court suggests that school choice could be a great solution, it does not impose it. In true judicial conservatism, they specifically say that policy decisions are up to the legislature. According to the article, this flys in stark contrast to other courts who have ordered tax hikes to increase school funding.

In one of the most notorious cases, in Kansas City, Missouri in the 1980s, a judge issued an edict requiring a $1 billion tax hike to help the failing inner-city schools. This raised expenditures to about $14,000 per student, or double the national average, but test scores continued to decline. Even the judge later admitted that he had blundered.

Watch for NEA reaction.


Blogger Nathan said...

That editorial was a good read. If something like ruling in Missouri happened in Ohio I think I would leave, probably quit Ohio. I don't even want to hear the legal reasoning behind a judge ordering a tax-hike, it would give me a headache.

11/29/2005 3:16 PM  
Blogger Matt said...

Too late...The Ohio Supreme Court's ruling a few years ago didn't require a tax hike, but my understanding is that it basically said the rich areas have to help the poor areas. Maybe you guys know the ruling better than I do, but my understanding was that they basically want to use the judiciary to changed the tax laws.

11/29/2005 6:53 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home