Public education, yes or no? - Page 2

Davidius · #41 (**permalink**) 07-20-2007, 04:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by toddpedlar

I think the difference there is that the public school funded-by-participants-only is a government-run, government mandated institution, whereas the option for only private schools implies (it seems to me) less governmental entanglement with the schools... at least this is the impression I got from the list given at the outset.

That's the impression I got as well. I was just wondering why anyone would want government entanglement. If one supports public schools that are only funded by the taxes of those who use the service, then one is only a step away from private schooling. Why not just take the extra step?

LadyFlynt · #42 (**permalink**) 07-20-2007, 04:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CarolinaCalvinist

What is the difference between having public schools funded only by those who attend and having private schools? Wouldn't those who chose that option just rather have private schools so that the curriculum can be more individually tailored?

Personally, I don't see a difference. I guess the only difference I can see would be if the community wished to extended charitably toward those that want to attend but "can't" afford to. But then private schools can do the same. I guess you could say a religiously run school vs a community run school.

Dan.... · #43 (**permalink**) 07-20-2007, 04:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CarolinaCalvinist

That's the impression I got as well. I was just wondering why anyone would want government entanglement. If one supports public schools that are only funded by the taxes of those who use the service, then one is only a step away from private schooling. Why not just take the extra step?

Because then politicians wouldn't be able to run on a "pro-education" platform

, whatever that means.

5solasmom · #44 (**permalink**) 07-20-2007, 04:49 PM

I chose #6 before reading the longer definitions of each in the OP.

I thought the "paid for participants only" infered those with children IN the public schools, not the government. Which I guess would then make them private as opposed to public, then.

See what happens when you don't ponder before responding?

Unfortunately, the reality of the government removing themselves (and conseqently ridding the taxation for it) from the education sector is about as realistic as all the ice caps melting and the oceans rising 20 feet in the next 10 years.

BJClark · #45 (**permalink**) 07-20-2007, 06:11 PM

I know many people who choose to homeschool their kids that I have the utmost respect for, they do an awesome job. While I also know others who claim to be homeschooling their children yet, all they do is put in a 'teaching video' for their kids to watch and thats what they watch...

When my son was in a "Christian School" they had someone sitting in the class monitoring the kids, all she did was pass out worksheets, put in a video with someone else actually teaching, then she sat there, she looked over the papers and graded them by comparing them to the "teacher's worksheet' that came with the material..she didn't know the material herself, so she couldn't sit down with the kids and show them why they got the wrong answers..I'm assuming the parents I know who do this, are using the same material that school used.

While I know not all Christian schools are like that, I'd take a public education over that any day...because that is not educating the kids..

I also know of some homeschoolers who take classes online at a Virtual School, much like online college courses, and the parents just leave the kids alone on the computer all day doing 'school' work. And the only interaction they have with their kids is taking them to and from various activities..and then they pat themselves on the back because they are 'homeschooling' their kids. When in reality, someone else is educating their kids, their kids just aren't sitting in a public school class room all day..

Again, I know some parents who homeschool their kids and are very active in the actual teaching and checking..but there are also many parents who aren't...and we personally can not afford to pay the $3,200 per pupil (less 10% discount for additional students) tution the local Churches here now charge for kids to go to their schools...yes it covers books and supplies, insurance for the school, teachers salaries, school upkeep and soforth, but it doesn't include school uniforms that are also required or field trips, or project materials, or a whole host of other things they also need money for...and I certainly don't spend that much in school supplies, projects, clothes, field trips and such throughout a school year in the public school they attend now..for four kids.

SRoper · #46 (**permalink**) 07-20-2007, 06:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CarolinaCalvinist

What is the difference between having public schools funded only by those who attend and having private schools? Wouldn't those who chose that option just rather have private schools so that the curriculum can be more individually tailored?

If you read the full description it gives a different understanding than the short description implies.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dan....

4. Yes - but funded only by participants - Public schools should be overseen by the public sector and provided for through taxes. However, if the household chooses other means for providing for their children's education, they should become exempt by some means (e.g., by tax credits).

In 4. taxpayers pay for public school, but you are exempt if you have children in another schooling method. Taxpayers who don't have school aged children would still fund the school.

ChristianTrader · #47 (**permalink**) 07-20-2007, 09:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SRoper

I guess I've now officially lost any claim to be libertarian as I chose option 3. Contra the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, I don't believe there is a right to free and mandatory elementary education. However, if the state does not provide education for those who want it, I'm afraid we will have many more people who are functionally illiterate, and we will end up paying more in higher crime rates.

The problem is that the illiteracy rates are higher now then when there was not state mandated or state run schools.

There is also the problem of the entity that pays for something will eventually start to enforce how the money is spent. If you involve the state, then that is a bad recipe.

CT

SRoper · #48 (**permalink**) 07-20-2007, 10:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ChristianTrader

The problem is that the illiteracy rates are higher now then when there was [sic] not state mandated or state run schools.

There is also the problem of the entity that pays for something will eventually start to enforce how the money is spent. If you involve the state, then that is a bad recipe.

CT

Source? I'm curious how they estimated literacy rates before the 19C.

As to your second point, the taxpayers are the ones paying for it.

LadyFlynt · #49 (**permalink**) 07-20-2007, 10:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SRoper

If you read the full description it gives a different understanding than the short description implies.

In 4. taxpayers pay for public school, but you are exempt if you have children in another schooling method. Taxpayers who don't have school aged children would still fund the school.

Not true...I just received my tax letter stating what hubby and I have to each pay the school DIRECTLY.

ChristianTrader · #50 (**permalink**) 07-20-2007, 11:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SRoper

Source? I'm curious how they estimated literacy rates before the 19C.

As to your second point, the taxpayers are the ones paying for it.

Ill go second point first, If you want the taxpayers to pay for it, then cut the middle man out and make it private. Under your option, one would get a check from "The state of ___ or the federal government" to then go towards "schooling at ____". Under such a system, whom gets to determine where money is spent and who is qualified to receive it. Hint: I will not receive a phone call.

First point, thats a good question

I have heard it so much over the years that I assumed it was a common knowledge. I withdraw the statement for the time being.

CT

Dan.... · #51 (**permalink**) 07-21-2007, 01:26 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SRoper

If you read the full description it gives a different understanding than the short description implies.

In 4. taxpayers pay for public school, but you are exempt if you have children in another schooling method. Taxpayers who don't have school aged children would still fund the school.

Sorry, Yes, I was meaning the description in number 4 (in which case, yes, those who do not have children in school at all are still paying. This would be the "voucher" system). I unintendedly made the summary of number 4 in the poll misleading.
Sorry.

Dan.... · #52 (**permalink**) 07-21-2007, 01:29 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by LadyFlynt

I just received my tax letter stating what hubby and I have to each pay the school DIRECTLY.

Isn't it sickening???!!!

All I have to do is look at my tax statement for a half second and can focus my eyes directly on the school district portion of the bill...It's the only line on the bill that has that many digits!!!

LadyFlynt · #53 (**permalink**) 07-21-2007, 03:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dan....

Isn't it sickening???!!!

All I have to do is look at my tax statement for a half second and can focus my eyes directly on the school district portion of the bill...It's the only line on the bill that has that many digits!!!

We're not even landowners...on top of the land, county, and local taxes, there is a head tax. $10 per adult over 18. Last year we only received one letter for me and none for my husband. They had me listed at being in my 60's, single, and mother to 1 child (my oldest).