Charter funding has come under the microscope.  In WDEL’s investigation on schooling changes, Charlie Copeland dropped this… “If we’d give $15,000 in vouchers a lot of doors would open for these kids.”

So the first question that comes up, is:  from whom does this $15,000 come?

If it comes from the property tax assessment then there is a problem.  People pay property taxes to schools for the upkeep of their neighborhood schools… A person in Appoquinimink does not think he’s paying for a Claymont School’s benefit. He pays his dues to better his local school so he can resell his property at a higher rate…

At least he thinks he’s getting something back for his taxes. and so those payments are less painful….

Recently some comments have arisen implying that the money that follows each child or in Charlie’s case, the $15,000 voucher belongs to the parent of that child… it doesn’t. However if the parents actually paid that amount in property taxes they would then have a better stance to begin their argument…

Although actual home ownership among parents of school children is hard to glean, one third of students across the entire state are on TANF or SNAP.  That requires their parents incomes to be below 150% of the Federal Poverty Level.

Very good chance they don’t own homes or property.  That percentage rises the closer one gets to the confluence of three rivers.. rising from 13.7% in Appoquinimink, 29.8% in Brandywine, 33.8% in Red Clay, 40.0% in Colonial, and 41.0% in Christina.

Those paying property taxes to keep up their houses value, would subsidize under this plan, the removal of $15,000 they and their neighbor’s pay, to transfer it to another district where it may benefit residents next to those schools, at the detriment and loss to local district into which they pay…

Further compounding this is that at least 60% of those parents near our city of Wilmington, do not pay any property taxes at all. They are subsidized entirely by all those property owners and business people who do not have children of their own.

Vouchers are like heroin.  And you know who makes the best case in promoting the benefits of heroin?  Sellers.  They can make heroin sound safe, harmless, fun, necessary, and socially acceptable, offering up no consequences upon ingestion. They leave a lot out. So it is with voucher proponents.  The idea that one can put their child in Tower or Tatnall and have someone else pays for it is addictive like heroin.  Why would one not do such a great thing.

But what the soon-to-be heroin addict finds out, is that eventually that bill comes due.  They have to back-pay the price for all product they used.  In a scheme with vouchers where the money follows the children who’s parents are not contributing to the pile, the person who pays the most (parent), is the school from which the child leaves.  Those left,… like society cleaning up after a heroin plague, are hurt by this drug laced action.

Yet with an open mind, there is a way that vouchers COULD work… We could say, “Gee, Charlie, if you think it is such a great idea, let’s have you and your high-income buddies pay for a  GIANT scholarship fund out of your pockets that gives all full tuition to students who want to go to Tatnall and Tower… You’re pockets are deep..”

This works because the person who benefits from having vouchers… (school entrepreneur) is also the one who pays for the privilege of doing so.)  Therefore this passes the “fair test”:  benefiting  those upper crust well enough, so they lose nothing”.

Well. Do you think he’d jump at the chance to pay for all these children to go to better schools?  If he says no, then obviously with all he knows about this issue personally, the answer is not to have anyone else pay for it either… Obvisously if Charlie doesn’t want to jump in with both feet, it’s because he knows doing so is a bad investment.

We have all been warned….   Heroin sounds good too if you only listen to the dealer….