Can anyone address whether this video is accurate or not?

Connor was first.
Sure, it’s more accurate than the original oreo ad. But this one (and most of them) leave out one crucial point: who does the money belong to?

The person in this video, and those who believe likewise, feel that the taxpayer’s money belongs to the school and district, to distribute as they see fit, and manage all the programs and classes that they provide for the other students.

The issue here is one of fiscal morality: who owns the money funding these programs? Should parents who wish to educate their children in a private school be required to fund the programs and administration for their neighbor’s children?

This ad does accurately reflect the monetary dissemination in public schools: $7,000 is not applied directly to each individual student. Instead, that money is divvied up among all those involved in the process.

But what of it?

Pro-voucher ads have it right when they state that competition should be introduced into schooling, allowing a person’s money to be spent according to whoever they feel can best provide the services they desire.

If money has to be taken from gym teachers, the library, and the computer lab, so what? Obviously, if a significant number of students leave the school, less resources will be required to administer to the leftover students, and thus programs can be downsized, teachers can be let go, and less classes offered. Basic supply and demand.

But unions like their job security. They don’t want anybody “let go” simply because the services they provide don’t meet up to the expectations of the customer (parents). And so, you see teachers vigorously opposing vouchers, simply because it would mean downsizing, restructuring, and fiscal hardship. They like being funded by every taxpayer in the city. Who wouldn’t?