The argument that a voucher system will increase the social efficiency of primary schooling is weakened if there is a high degree of Tiebout sorting on the basis of income status and race. Agree or Disagree with the statement above, given that there are significant positive externalities associated with primary education and local property taxes are a major source of primary school funding in the United States. As described in the text, Fischel (1989) argued that Californias Serrano v. Priest school finance equalization induced voters to limit property taxes in California. Following this argument, would an alternative school finance equalization that produced increased spending for low-wealth communities using state funds be more, less, or equally likely to induce a property tax limitation in California? Explain. Express your own view, choosing to be in favor, or against a progressive voucher program (see Robert Reich). What problems would this proposal present from a public choice perspective? And do you believe that Moving to Opportunity Programs offer a better solution to the problem of quality primary schooling for low-income? Post one thoughtful reply to another student concerning their answer #3 above. Try to pick a student who has no reply. For more information on Voucher Program read this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/School_voucher
So much stress and so little time? We’ve got you covered. Get your paper proofread, edited or written from scratch within the tight deadline.