Breaking Down the Testimony: What’s Really Being Said?

Introduction

An in-depth look at common arguments made during the debate over funding private education with taxpayer dollars.

Published on: 2-27-2025

Tags: School Choice, Public Education, Government Spending

1. “We chose a private school for our kids because it aligns with our values.”

• YES: That’s your right! Parents are free to choose private schools if they believe those institutions align with their religious, moral, or academic preferences.
• BUT: That choice does not mean taxpayers should foot the bill.

Choosing private education means opting out of the public system, which means you take on the financial responsibility.

This is not about school choice—it’s about forcing taxpayers to subsidize personal decisions.

If we extend this logic, why shouldn’t taxpayers also pay for private club sports, religious summer camps, or homeschool expenses?

2. “The financial burden is substantial—$40,000 for tuition.”

• YES: Yes, private school is expensive. That’s why it’s a private service—not a public right.
• BUT: Taxpayers shouldn’t be expected to cover private tuition just because it’s expensive.

If a family chooses an elite school, that’s their financial decision—not the state’s responsibility.

Public education is already available and already paid for by tax dollars—so why should we divert that funding to a private institution?

This argument is like saying, “We bought a luxury car instead of a regular sedan, and now we think the government should help pay for it.”

3. “As hardworking, taxpaying citizens, we should have input on where our tax dollars go.”

• YES: Absolutely! Citizens have the right to influence government spending.
• BUT: Taxes don’t work like a personal bank account.

You don’t get to redirect your tax money to only the programs that benefit you personally.

By this logic, people without kids should be able to opt out of funding public schools altogether—which would be absurd.

Public money is meant for public goods—roads, schools, emergency services—not private benefits.

If every taxpayer could “opt out” of funding what they personally don’t use, society wouldn’t function.

4. “Religious freedom should be considered in passing this bill.”

• YES: Religious freedom is protected. No one is stopping you from sending your kids to a religious school.
• BUT: Religious freedom does not mean taxpayers must fund religious education.

Public dollars funding religious schools is a violation of church and state.

If we fund Catholic schools, should we also fund Muslim schools, Hindu schools, or even radical fundamentalist schools that teach anti-science ideology?

Where does the line get drawn? If religious schools can get public money, what about private religious organizations that offer other services—should taxpayers fund those too?

Public money should go to neutral, public education systems that serve all students—regardless of religious background.

Conclusion

This testimony truly highlights the flaws in the arguments for using taxpayer dollars to fund private schools.

While parents have the right to choose private education, it is not the public’s financial obligation to support those choices.

Public funds should support public systems that benefit everyone equally—you know—the Public.

Check back often for updates...