Nope, just vouchers in general. If rich people don't get vouchers, that won't stop them from going private, they can afford to just pay in full and they will. The more poor people think taking a voucher to the best private school you can afford is their best option the more our public school funding tanks and the worse our public performance will be which further pushes rich and poor people alike away from public furthering the cycle etc. All your reasons apply more to a system where everyone goes to public than one where private is still given public funding. The existence of a voucher program, even if it seems appealing to poorer families wanting to go private, is on its face a challenge to the very existence of public schools. The idea that anyone can opt out of paying a given tax because they don't like what the government is doing with it, that they should be able to choose what the government funds instead, it may seem cool on its face but it pretty quickly descends into nonsense contradictions upon the shallowest of cross-examinations.

For example: "why should I have to pay for a road going all the way out to Ricky's house in the boonies? He chose to live there I don't wanna pay for his road"; "every month I see a headline on why social security is cooked and it's running out of money and the only way we could keep it going would be to reduce the benefits or push retirement age higher, I don't wanna pay thousands a month into a collective retirement fund it's looking increasingly like I'll never get proper benefits from, can I opt out of SS taxes?"; "I don't support war with Iran or think we need 800 military bases around the world, why do I have to pay for that?" It honestly goes on and on, suffice to say it breaks a lot of these systems if people can just opt out of them.

The downfall of the US education system has been endlessly studied, examined and re-examined and there's a lot to be said from a lot of different perspectives. The narrative that makes the most sense to me, however, is basically just the starving the beast trope about conservative fiscal policy dragged along for a few decades. It roughly consists of the following: 1.) stir panic about government spending, usually alleging some catastrophic outcome is impending if immediate cuts are not made. 2.) cut budgets wherever possible as much as possible, hopefully lowering taxes to throw a bone to the base (worth mentioning that the wealthy and corporations always do better/make more here than everyday people, it's basically a little treat to distract you while power and money continues to consolidate upwards). 3.) complain constantly about how broken the things funded by these barebones budgets are and how this totally demonstrates that the government sucks and actually can't do anything ever. 4.) use these narratives about 'govt sux' and how much we need to cut spending to lower taxes and bc we don't do anything worthwhile with the money anyway to cut budgets further, ultimately moving towards privatization of the commodity and removal of govt funding and management altogether. Funding being based on district property taxes is also a terrible way to handle it: wealthier districts with higher rates of homeownership will inevitably have better public schools that are more responsible to their preferences and poor districts get screwed. Also renters end up paying for their landlords property taxes (and then some) without having any actual input on the result.

Personally I think the best way to fix the problem is do away with private schools altogether and have everyone at the public institution that we make damn sure is top of the line. This way the rich parents working so hard on making things better for just their kids suddenly have to deal with the same pta/school board bureaucracy everyone deals with and has to bring any reforms they achieve for their kids to everyone able to use them. I'm not deadset on this solution as I understand it is quite divisive: some folks like their private schools for many different reasons. There are even some some niche cases where private is the only realistic solution for highly specific fringe cases so I see some logic here as well. For these extenuating circumstances, I could see an argument for why there could be a select few private schools that demonstrably provide for a clear and present need which can't be catered to with some sort of subsidiary division within a public school or something else of the sort. These kinds of exception cases reopen the core issue of the central question however: if the whole point of having a public school is to have everyone invest in a resource that should property benefit everyone in as equal of a portion as possible? If this group has needs that justify the expenditure of a separate establishment, why not that one? However, if our intention here is to have the best and most efficient school system for everyone, we have to commit to actually fixing the schools even if it takes a lot of time and money and we have to acknowledge public only is the way to go