Private schools are likely to require capital investments for expansion that public school is do not. Would the cost of constructing a new public school be amortized and justify an increase in the annual state allocation per student, or would it cut deeply into the annual funding for teacher’s salaries, and books or other resources?

This expansive argument against school choice excludes information.and avoids a format that would clarify the issue in favor of a presentation with select, isolated factoids in terms that vary to much to be digested, compared, and analyzed.

I would prefer that private schools cap their tuition, but our local parochial schools’ set tuition high enough so that discounts and scholarships can be provided to the needy.

If an anticipated influx of low-income families need $3000 of their own funds to cover recent tuition rates of $10,000,but would make perfect sense to raise tuition to $15,000.
Those who’d been out of pocket for $10,000 a year would apply the $7000 grant and pay $2000 less, per child, per year.

That $5000 increase per student could go to scholarships that combined with the $7000 grant to pay $12,000 for each low income student.

The additional $3000 could be waived, although many low income families could afford to pay that $3000 with their earnings. And if possible, they should earn and pay that amount; public education fails to some extent because parents don’t directly pay anything for it. Even if they only pay a minor fraction of the costs, they’ll be highly motivated to compel their kids to do homework, behave and succeed . . . . or lose their scholarships and be returned to a public school.
My extemporaneous exploration of what’s likely to happen is arguably more clear and credible than the professional report in the article.