[4MOAisgoodenuf]

There are absolutely actors who wish to privatize education.

And, depending on the district, those federal resources provide a significant chunk of the funding for schools.

In my local district in Kansas, it’s about 13% of public school funding, in the district next door it’s about 44%. Without that funding many public schools in the area would close with no alternative.

By cutting off those resources, there is no “choice” or “control” being given to local communities unless you mean a certain family in Wichita…

[daft_pink]

I mean that the republican party, the democrat party, the people in charge of the department of education don’t have an explicit goal of eliminating public schools. I’m sure there are some very extreme people who exist.

Federal funding is less than 10% of public school education funding and if it were reduced or went away, it doesn’t mean that a bunch of kids would just stop having any school.

[4MOAisgoodenuf]

> Federal funding is less than 10% of public school education funding

As I stated above, this greatly depends on your school district. Some schools receive <5% of their funding from the DoE, others receive as much as 75%.

Some of this funding is explicitly for general operations and other funding like that through IDEA is for assisting students with disabilities.

Some of these public schools are already hanging on by a thread and having trouble paying high enough wages to fill positions.

[daft_pink]

Again, we are just debating how to actually fund schools. These are just really extreme statements, where the state or local government would need to step up, because schools are a basic service provided by the government and these children aren’t going to be denied access to public education.

It’s not a mainstream view that we are privatizing the public education system in the United States. It’s just a choice being offered where schools are severely mismanaged that is essentially political because of teacher’s unions.