Smalls, you have the ability to see this for what it is and do a great job of setting aside bias as I know you have experienced both sides of the fence.
I am not anti EdChoice but am simply anti EdChoice as it is currently written which I believe is your point.
Regardless, the kids that you speak of and those stories are great and well deserved. However, would it not be nice for everyone to have that chance? I look at a kid like Little Anderson. He was an EdChoice kid. His mom is a great woman. She did not have the means to send her son to private school and therefore took advantage of EdChoice. You took one more "good" kid and parent from an already struggling district. At some point all that will be left is the undesirables. Who will educate these kids? Or at least try? Not the privates. I will NEVER fault a family for doing what is best for them but there has to be a level playing field. You cannot point to a public school as failing because you poached all of their talented kids. And keep in mind I have spent time coaching at city public schools. Parental influence is very lacking.
Still, you cannot measure one entity by certain standards, deem that entity as failing, and then allow kids to use vouchers to attend a school that is not measured by those same standards. That is numero uno what is wrong with EdChoice. Once the playing field is level I'm good even though there are still flaws.
Anderson is a great example.
This may be too much information, but he specifically told me that he could have/would have been in the car with Banks from Waite and we all know how that ended. So my argument for some form of EdChoice is exactly that situation. He had the potential to be "sacrificed" for the potential greater good of the community. If I am his parent I say no thanks. Which thankfully she did.
I'll take his future now and the potential positives he can/will bring to the world vs being another statistic.