No, the original headline was very misleading. The taxes themselves are not 440% higher which is what the original headline sounds like. The part that goes to education is 440% higher. That’s why I phrased it that way
“I looked up Kickapoo and it jumped … the first year Kickapoo was paying out money was like $26,000 and the next year it jumped up to $113,000.”
Ah, I misunderstood what you were saying. I suppose I presumed too much background from others about how private school vouchers worked. The school districts is the one paying for the private school vouchers. Their costs were higher because of private voucher funding
Changed the title again to hopefully be more clear
Wait, you think that is a more clear headline than this:
Your headline makes it sound like the school district’s costs are 440% higher. Absolute trainwreck.
No, the original headline was very misleading. The taxes themselves are not 440% higher which is what the original headline sounds like. The part that goes to education is 440% higher. That’s why I phrased it that way
“I looked up Kickapoo and it jumped … the first year Kickapoo was paying out money was like $26,000 and the next year it jumped up to $113,000.”
Your new title says the school district’s costs are 440% higher than private schools.
It should say “higher cost because of”
“higher cost over” implies “more, greater than”… It doesn’t imply “higher because of”
Ah, I misunderstood what you were saying. I suppose I presumed too much background from others about how private school vouchers worked. The school districts is the one paying for the private school vouchers. Their costs were higher because of private voucher funding
Changed the title again to hopefully be more clear
It’s a good article though and provides information about an important topic, I didn’t mean to nitpick
Clearly others found my attempts to clarify it to be confusing too, so thanks for pointing out that it wasn’t the best title
Titles are tricky too