I only scanned, but if I’m understanding correctly, the objective would not be solely to get more funding into poorer schools. After all, if the money travels with the student, another objective (or consequence) would probably be that the schools in the “leafy parts of town” (to quote Eric Osborg) might have incentive to lure high needs kids. (Strong incentive, in fact, since we’d all be fighting over scraps?) That sounds great at first — the end of de facto economic segregation — but ultimately it could be a grand opportunity for exploitation of the poor kid for the sake of the rich.

That might not be what’s intended, but most things have unintended consequences – (was it really the intent of NCLB to replace education with a test?).

If it sounds unlikely that schools would mug a needy child’s backpack and use the money to fund the crew team, then we ought to take a closer look at what happens to our kids who come now with a funding “backpack.” Special Ed kids come with money attached to them. In fact, that money is for mandated services. And yet? In my own limited experience, I can think of a dozen instances at least where kids were not receiving mandated services (until the UFT stepped in to force it). But the author’s tea? There were always funds for that . And Special Ed is mandated services. What will happen when the WSF services are discretionary – as most would be. Does the poor child’s money, which might have gone for remedial extras wind up funding the fourteenth course offering in Advanced Placement?

Not so far-fetched. Not when richer schools have lost their funding because there kids don’t have as many needs.

I also think that Osborg’s arguments for actual salaries are – they just don’t hold up. He says: “Under WSF, school budgets could reflect the actual salaries of their teachers, so it would be obvious that a high-poverty school with less-experienced (cheaper) teachers is spending less on its teachers. Its school budget would leave more money to be spent in other ways…” Is he actually saying that since these are tough schools to work in, they will continue to attract only “cheap” and inexperienced teachers, and that that’s a good thing? That that’s a plus? I’m too tired to write down the arguments against that, but I think they are obvious enough.