The scenario has nothing to do with the price of tea in China...what it does have to do with is the idea that someone is paying for (might I also add, they're being required to pay for) a service. Whether or not they are always making use of that service is neither here nor there, but when they request the assistance of that service, be it insurance or education funding, they should be entitled to the benefits of that service, as they've been paying for it all along.

 

And...let me try to speak to a couple of points that I would anticipate you may try to make:

 

1) "Well, since they're required to pay into public education funding, then they should make use of the public schools instead of complaining."

 

Most people who choose to send their children to private schools do it for one, or both of two general reasons. Either they believe that their children's education should be built around and should teach the precepts of their religion, or they believe that private school education, in general, will provide their children with a higher quality of education. For some people, these ideas are of more value than the money saved by using public schools.

 

2) The voucher system is not going to make much, if any change in the "recruiting" problems that so many people see existing. It will allow people to spend their voucher at virtually whichever school they see fit, and thus, they will go where "the grass is greener".

 

If someone wants to go be a good wrestler in high school, then they're most likely to go to a school with a successful wrestling program. Thus, the schools with the most successful wresting programs will appeal to those students, and will likely build up a large faction of students who excel in wrestling. Then, the school down the road with the struggling wrestling program is going to complain that the other school is "recruiting".

 

Vouchers may make people happy that they get to are spend their alotted funding at whichever schools they please, but, the "recruiting" complaints are not going to be curbed.

 

The parents in questioned, if I remember right, never tried to see if the public school could fit their children's needs. The public school was given no choice to educate their child to the best level possible. So, they never requested the use of those services but rather wanted the money.

 

If they want a religion-based education, I applaud them for that, but PRESENTLY, the ADA funds cannot be used for that although it seems the parents are wanting that.

 

In a voucher system, the parents would be allowed to do that but the Democrats/Teacher's unions are blocking it.

 

And the recruiting aspect would be MORE because you would be recruiting for EVERY STUDENT!

Reread your scenario and it has nothing to do with the present scenario because the parents never went to the doctor. They went to the insurance company and said we want the money for the surgery without letting the doctor try and treat their injury.

There seems to be an extremely flawed view by many that we all pay taxes for education and it goes directly to the school system in which we reside. The state controls the majority of this tax money which is payed out due to average daily attendance.

 

This system has to pay 5200 a month under this ruling for this student. A student that they are receiving nothing for if they dont attend the school. The state is not sending more money to the public schools just because this student is handicapped, it is a burden that they must be prepared for without additional funding. Since this thread seems to enjoy hypothetical situations lets run with it.

 

A small rural system gets word to prepare for a severely physically handicapped student. They spend 150k to have facilities and faculty to be totally prepared for this student. Five teachers are cut from the system to pay for this since there are no additional funds coming from the state. Now the students parents say that this school cannot accomadate and properly educate their child so the system must pay over 5k per month to send them to the school of their choice. Two more teachers are cut to pay for this. We have now gone from 20 teachers to 13. We now have 38 students in each class instead of 25.

 

You tell me who suffers.

A small rural system gets word to prepare for a severely physically handicapped student. They spend 150k to have facilities and faculty to be totally prepared for this student. Five teachers are cut from the system to pay for this since there are no additional funds coming from the state. Now the students parents say that this school cannot accomadate and properly educate their child so the system must pay over 5k per month to send them to the school of their choice. Two more teachers are cut to pay for this. We have now gone from 20 teachers to 13. We now have 38 students in each class instead of 25.

Sorry, but that hypothetical is just ridiculously over the top.

Sorry, but that hypothetical is just ridiculously over the top.

 

No kidding.