Should parents pay for there children to go to school? Would it help to keep behavior in line for the children, knowing there parents are paying for there way?
Would it benefit the school and help with more materials and better learning enviroments?

Personely I am for taking government out of schools, and turning those shcools over to charter organisations. The wealthy can pay for thier childs learning directly (which they probibly already doing so). And the state governments can can issue grants to those who can't afford their childs schooling to cover part of the cost. And yes, I would perswade the parents to get involved their childs' education because they are forking up the do pay for it (I.E. let's not have the money to go to waist).

*ahem*

Did you mean "Personally, I am for taking government out of schools, and turning those schools over to charter organisations. The wealthy can pay for their child's learning directly, which they probably already do. And the state governments can issue grants to those who can't afford their child's schooling to cover part of the cost. And yes, I would persuade the parents to get involved in their child's education because they are forking up the to pay for it (i.e. let's not have the money go to waste)."?
2/10 V. Poor. See me after class.

I wouldn't normally be quite so pedantic or facetious, but the irony of this post in an Education thread tickled me. Apologies for any offence caused, Crashfourit. I'm now conscious that, for the gag to work, I can't afford any typos myself!

Now to the meat of it. I can see an argument in the US system for removing Federal government from schooling to devolve control to state level (though I think the counter arguments for a single national curriculum and standards trump it myself).

However, I think that removing all government from education is a charter for education on a par with the madrassas of poor Islamic countries - i.e. little more than religious brainwashing for all but a tiny, and wealthy, minority.

Only the wealthy kids will get any kind of general education, the rest will be reliant on the "charter organisations" you talk about. Some, maybe even most, of these will be owned and run by churches. What would be to stop such schools teaching creationism and homophobia as fact, and not teaching science or anything else that interferes with the church's particular worldview at all?

Would it be a good idea to produce a generation of ignorant extremists brainwashed to do what they are told by wealthier and better educated people, even if that were not in their own best interests? Some might argue that the US state public schools produce too many of those as it is... (all AD posters excepted)

Julian,



What do you think is happening today? Private school (Wealthy) kids get the best education, the middle class get the average education, and the poor get the leftovers. The Federal Government has allowed our school systems to degrade drastically over the last 20 or so years. When there is a problem they just raise taxes and throw money at it. New Jersey pays about 13K per student and they aren't even in the top 10. I think to fix this problem the Fed can have general regulations but leave the funding to the states. Get rid of tenure (?) and institute some sort of voucher program.

Also, Federal regulations haven't done a thing to solidify educational programs across the country. When I lived in Jersey I had 8 classes a day for 45 min. each and when I moved to PA I had 6 classes a day for 60 min. each. I technically could have graduated early because of all the extra classes, but the school wouldn't allow it because they wouldn't get the tax $$.

As far as tenure goes, it has to be the number one reason in the degradation of our educational system. How can you tell someone that after 5 years they have a secure position that can't be taken away for anything short of abuse. For example, in Jersey I had a teacher in high school who was picked on by his students. They would throw paper balls at him while he was looking, spit balls at him when he would right on the board, and berate him with curses while he taught. One time they taped a tampon to the guys back and he walked around with it ALL DAY.. This guy had this problem for over 5 years yet he kept his job. How can he be expected to teach kids when they don't respect him?


As for government regulations on education, I think the Fed should maintain a bare minimum of education. Such as keeping religion out of the teachings or for private schools, the ability to teach say creationism and evolution so long as proper weight is given to both. Standardized tests are a waste. We spent so much time preparing for these tests that we couldn't move beyond the basics. We literally spent about 4 out of 10 months prepping for the various standardized tests.

Should parents pay for there children to go to school?

No, because this is inevitably going to lead to widening of the class gap. The rich students would go to the best schools, have the most knowledge and get the best opportunities. The poor students would go to the worst schools, get the least knowledge and have fewer opportunities.

As mindmesh points out, things are already that way to a certain extent. But, having parents completely foot the bill for their child's education is only going to polarize that even more.

We need to do some serious reform in our public school system to ensure that everyone gets an equally good education, regardless of how much their parents make.

Yes, but through vouchers which allows everybody, regardless of economic standing, to benefit. Fortunately vouchers have been declared constitutional and are being implemented in various forms in a number of states including Colorado and Florida.

Parents will value their childrens' educations more with vouchers as they're given greater control. It is human nature to place greater value on that which you choose and pay for.

Schools will benefit as well. As money enters the front door instead of the back door, educational bureaucrats will have to justify their existence or get out. The increase in competition will motivate schools to trim the fat and spend their education funds on the students rather than these bureaucrats. It is upon these principles that some of the best universities in the world have been formed here in the United States.

To me, parents are already "paying" for education. Paying your local property taxes is no different than cutting a check to a private school, and the payment to a public school can be just as expensive, depending upon where one lives. I'm not so certain that it would be an inducement for parents to encourage their children to do better. I had some private school friends whose parents were happy as long as they got above an "F" or a "D" On the otherhand, I know parents of children in public schools who would scalp their children if they came home with anything less than a "B" Money won't motivate parents to encourage children to learn, parents make that decision solely through their own past experience. Parents have already made up their minds about their children's expectations even before junior or little princess scurries into the building for the first day of kindergarten. Some just care more than others and a little pinch in their pocketbooks won't change that.

I do pay for my child to attend public school. It's called property taxes. And we have millage proposals on a regular basis, always to increase the amount we pay in property taxes.

Why should we care about our children's behavior and the resources they have in order to learn only if we have to write a check or hand over the greenbacks for their tuition? It doesn't merely boil down to money. Caring about the kids helps, too.

Ah, here we go again, don’t put the blame where it belongs, don’t make individuals accountable for their actions, blame the teacher. Who knows, this person could have been the greatest instructor at your school had they been given the chance and given the proper respect. There’s implied respect because they are the authority figure in the classroom, you’re simply skirting the heart of the issue.

So what are we to do, only hire 6’ 5” instructors who can bench their body weight and hope they intimidate respect into the students? Big biceps, a dagger stare and the ability to intimidate shouldn’t be the first criteria when hiring a teacher.

If this person were a bad instructor then yes a mechanism should be in place to either improve their skills or remove them from the classroom.



Like PE mentions, most of us DO pay for children to go to school through taxes. If parents had to pay for school there will be a demographic that won’t be able to afford the payments. So then we’ll have parents who pay out of their checkbooks for their child’s education and taxed so the government can pay for those who can’t afford it on their own.



College is far more expensive than public school and I witnessed a whole lot of students who partied their way out of college at the expense of their parents. And suddenly when they were on their own, paying their own tuition and living expenses they became better students. Maybe we should make the students pay for their own high school.

If I had never witnessed or read about students who came from public schools and went on to better themselves, then I’d say yes, let’s overhaul the system. But there are far too many who graduate from high school that become productive citizens. Those who have fought through a school system that failed them, or took advantage of a good school more than likely did so because their family was involved.



I was working at the state level for our education department in the 80’s when the personal computer boom hit and every school had to have them. At that time the average personal computer was around 5K and school districts went out of their way to spend exorbitant amounts of money to equip classrooms with the latest technology. The only problem was they just sat their collecting dust, the failure was wrapping a curriculum around the technology.

You can throw all the money you want into school rooms for better equipment and materials but if it’s not properly integrated into the curriculum then it’s wasted, and you will never fool all the students all the time.

You hit on a key here: better learning environment.

Let’s increase the pay for teachers, install cameras in the classrooms, filter out the underachieving teachers, get the parents involved through structured curriculum and you’ll sow the seeds for a healthy learning environment.

Should parents pay for there children to go to school?

First of all, I would like to point out that via school taxes, everyone pays for the school system to keep working. (Even retired people.. ) Parents whos kids don't even attend school have to pay! (Take my parents for example; I am homeschooled. Not only do they pay taxes, but they pay for my curriculums and such as well.)


Anyhow, well, yes. It is a fact that the US school system is among the worst in the world. To get rid of Public, government-funded schools completely would do many things.

First, it would give parents more of an option to choose what is taught to their children.
At the moment, they really have no control over what is taught aside from either putting them in a private school or homeschooling them.

Second, it would drastically improve the quality of the system,
each school being independantly owned and not under specific government regulations.

Third, it would create a better learning environment.
As a fact, most, if not all, government-run programs end up being the slums.




As is mentioned to an extent, that wouldn't be true. With the lack of a government school system, there would be no need to collect taxes to run it. In other words, you would have (hopefully... ) lower taxes, providing enough money to pay for the private schooling.


In my opinion, the government should have never gotten caught up in education anyhow, as its purpose is to 'protect the populous', not to educate them, but it is a bit late to change that now, so..



[PuNK]

Should parents pay for there children to go to school?
If you mean, should we have a system of pay-per-child schools, then my answer is no. We have decided as a society that it is better to have educated children than not. This being the case, our current system of socialized education is a good way to carry this out. Even those people who do not have children in schools and pay into the system benefit from living in a society where children have an education. Privatizing all education or creating some sort of progressive voucher program for pay-per-child taxation does not address this.

If you mean, should parents pay an additional fee on top of current tax funding, then I would also say no. The state has just as much, if not more, incentive to see that children get an education. Better educated citizens are more likely to pay more in taxes and contribute to the expansion of the economy. Assessing a fee for this is unfair and it's not necessary.

Would it help to keep behavior in line for the children, knowing there parents are paying for there way?
Not in my opinion. Miscreants will be miscreants whether or not there is some kind of individual guilt hanging over them.

Would it benefit the school and help with more materials and better learning enviroments?
Naturally, more money for improving classrooms would help. But making it a required tax or fee is not a good idea. The problems with education have little to do with how much money is pushed into the system, it has to do with how that money is spent. Studies such as this one: Teacher Quality and Student Achievement and this interesting summary of studies: Improving Teacher Quality show that a teacher's level of ability and preparation have the strongest correlations with student performance. Money spent in other areas does not bring these kind of high returns.

The vagueness of "materials" concerns me. Money spent on paper, pencils, and other tools of creativity is money well-spent, but often the "materials" money is spent on textbooks, in my opinion the biggest scam in education. But that's another thread.

Should parents pay for there children to go to school? Would it help to keep behavior in line for the children, knowing there parents are paying for there way?
Would it benefit the school and help with more materials and better learning environments?

While reading all of the good posts on this one I had an odd thought (yes I know this is not the first time ).

What if, instead of making parents pay directly for school (instead of through their tax dollars as they do now) we came up with a financial fine structure for out of control kids.

If a child violates school rules once, you get a warning. Twice and you get a $50.00 fine or you attend a 2 hour class with you child on the importance of education and parental involvement. Three times, $100.00 or 2 hours of child and parent(s) community service at the school, 4 = $200.00 or 4 hours of child and parent(s) community service at the school, etc.

Since one of the biggest problems schools have is the lack of parent involvement would these fines / classes / work not have a hope of forcing the parents to get involved?

Just another odd thought.

This debate is predicated on a number of issues which I will enumerate:

1. How valuable is education to society? If it's sufficiently valuable, then it is in the best interest of society to address short-comings of the current educational system as well as understand how society as a whole benefits (not just parents & children).

2. Privatization is not a panacea. It is specifically problematic when the "market" for a particular program is created by government fiat rather than the market itself. Education and prisons are good examples of such a situation. If one wishes to argue for privatization (which I think is a valuable idea), then one must first address this general issue.

3. Similarly, vouchers are a move towards privatization. Vouchers are like food stamps and other similar rebate-oriented welfare programs. They may superficially increase choice but end up not doing what was hoped in practice. Of course, I don't disagree with the principle from which vouchers are derived but I think that vouchers are a simplistic answer to a complex problem and thus will never reform education the way advocates hope vouchers will.

4. We have traditionally linked school funding to property taxes. This practice needs to be reviewed and in my opinion eliminated. It is especially a problem in California because of Proposition 13 where property taxes are effectively frozen.

5. There is a strong correlation between wealth and quality of schooling and of education. I'm not making a judgement on causes, effects, internal motivations, etc. Any reformation of education must account for this issue. One must evaluate what can and cannot be addressed; one must accept that some solutions may exacerbate other problems; and this must be weighed accordingly.

6. Schools do act as "holding facilities" for students. They can reduce delinquency as well as act as "day care". If society deems this a sufficiently important issue, then it will need to fund it. Historically, schooling has not been treated as such and has been ill-equipped for such a role.

7. Finally, what is the relationship between parents and educators? I think this compact is still being negotiated on a societal level. What parental roles do educators "own" and what educational roles to parents "own"? Where do the wishes of students play into this? Do non-parents have a say?

First of all I think that we need to get away from the idea that anyone who is in the compulsory years of full time education is a "student" in any meaningful sense.

The learning most "students" take in is more didactically taught to them than actively sought out by them. In this sense, I think we should resurrect the old-fashioned term "pupil" to describe kids who are in compulsory education, and reserve "student" for non-compulsory study in college or university.

One of the reasons I say this is that, in the UK at least, part of the problem in schools is that the word "student" carries with it undertones of maturity and a voluntary willingness to commit that are antithetical to the compulsory nature of basic schooling. I think that too many kids, and most of the disruptive ones, think that their presence is somehow all the commitment that they need to make, and (crucially) their parents think that as well.

A "student" is a self aware individual who treats the material taught on its own merits, and takes all teacher comment as advice, to be followed or ignored at the discretion of the student. The student gets to decide how much or how little they participate.

A "pupil", on the other hand, is an individual who does what they are told within the school system, because they do not know or understand as much as their teachers (or, indeed, to use an older and even more unfashionable idea, as much as their elders and betters). Full participation is expected, not some voluntary bonus in the gift of each "student".

I think that in our keenness move away from on idea, we have gone to far towards the opposite.

I'm all for the trend away from a culture of deference in most areas of society, but to the point where it is no longer assumed that one's social or material superiors or ones elders are automatically to be deferred to because they are from a higher social class, or are richer, older, whiter, maler, or any other non-relevant comparative.

I still think that it is critically important that we defer to greater knowledge and experience, however. We no longer seem willing as a society to defer to anyone on anything, even when we are patently wrong and the people we refuse to defer to are patently right.

This is no recipe for societal stultification - we should actively encourage people in wider society to challenge authority and ask penetrating questions to establish whether or not someone has the knowledge or experience that they claim to have, and whether they are deserving of our deference. But schools must somehow get back to a situation where the pupils learn how to defer, because two generations of students seem to have lost the knack for it.

Back on topic. If education could be funded exclusively by private means, why stop there. Why not fund the military that way too? Taxophobes often say that they realise there must be SOME taxes levied because the only really fundamental role they see the state has is to provide for external and internal defence. But why couldn't THAT happen privately, or at least with voluntary private funding, also?

In order to have to pay the property taxes that fund the schools, one has to own property. The lower class owns no property, therefore pays no tax, therefore would incur a large expense for their child's education.

I think we have a vested interest in maintaining a literate, educated population. I would probably get rid of the Department of Education at the national level (if I were queen) but I view public education, and public funding with local and state tax dollars, as a virtual necessity.

(I like overlandsailor's idea of issuing fines and classes/ community service to parents if their children misbehave, though)

I also like overlandsailor's idea, and you pointed out what I was too lazy to: tax brackets exist to make sure that everyone starts out on a fairly equal level of opportunity in this capitalist society - to prevent the rich from getting richer and the poor from getting poorer. For the most part, even children from poor homes can succeed independant of his/her family's poor economic state. If everyone had to pay (excluding maybe with vouchers), the rich would have an unfair economic advantage over the poor for generations in the future.

Just to clarify, even if you rent, you still end up effectively paying the property taxes of the landowner who is going to pass it on to you in the form of your monthly rent. Otherwise, the landowner is losing money on their property, which any good landowner doesn't want to do.

Good point, amf....I hadn't thought of that. But, of course, the amount of taxes taken out for renting a six hundred dollar a month apartment would hardly pay for a child's education. I doubt it would even cover the book expense.

And what percentage of those $600 per month rentals have school-age children in them? 10%? 100%? 2%? Hard to know. And doesn't really matter, since there are lots of expensive homes with residents paying high levels of property taxes without any kids living there. Does my taxes pay for other people's kids to get (hopefully) educated? Yep. I look at it as an investment in the economy, which helps to support me and my future family, because an educated job force is the best way to raise everyone's payscale.

Heh, me likes postal ironies as well.

In an ideal world, everyone would have the same level of education. But, just like pro sports, the best teachers go to the best schools, and the best schools service wealthier communities. This happens both in the public and private school areas.

It can also be argued that the quality of education received is determined by the student and not the school. I know of successful students that graduated from state universities, and failures graduated from Ivy League schools.

The problem lies not in the schools or the parents but in the mindset of our society. We have allowed ourselves to be educated in things that a free, successful society has time for (required fine arts classes: I took painting, band, choir, 'outdoor living', etc), and have begun to ignore those things that we have taken for granted (financial planning, social issues, politics). I took one required 1/2 credit class about our political structure, and that was it. How is it that I took two years of a required language, yet took no years in a Financial Planning course? Who wants to take bets on how many times I've sworn in German while making my budget!

I will come in on this as the lone voice of the producer. We talk endlessly about how to help the kids. We show endless concern about the parents. What about those who produce to pay for this education. Why are they last on the list of our concerns?

Taxation for education, as we can see, leads to one thing. It leads to federal education. There is a common thread reocurring in this country. We tax at the local level to gain some benefit for those in need. We ignore the cries of the producers and call them selfish. The number of victims grow and the needs, which are always subjective, multiply. The burden placed on the producers increases accordingly. The point finally occurs in which a decision is made, allow moderate local control or complete nationalize the program. We can see it occur in medicine, pensions, transportation, and education. Being against public education doesn't make me against education. It just means I am conscientious of those who are being asked to provide it. How about a voluntary education tax which could not be diverted to non-education needs? All income from this tax, would go to local school districts to use those funds as needed. Are we so afraid that not enough people would willingly support such a program? We consider a presidential election to be a referendum of the incumbent. If people are not willing to contribute to the schools, shouldn't that be seen as a referendum on the school system? Make taxation optional for programs like education. People could decide which interests they would like their money to serve. Programs that cannot get funding would go away. How much more democratic could you get?

absolutely not...many generations went faithfully to school without any conpensation whatsoever...well, except for the diploma they recieved after graduation...

let's get to the root of the problem rather than offer incentives to temporarily fix the problem..

Would you support the idea if the same principle was applied to the funding of the military? It breaks my heart that my tax dollars are being spent on adventures like Iraq. If I had a choice, I wouldn't contribute one cent to it. We just poured 7 billion down the drain when we canceled the Comanche helicopter. I don't like one bit that we spend more on military than next ten countries combined while other programs that I deem important are underfunded.
So I don't mind the idea as long as it's applied to ALL aspects of government spending.

That is what I believe to be the root of the problem. The layers of bureaucracy, the NEA and those that support them will not let anyone truly fix the problem, for fear it just might infringe into their little empire.

We already pay for our children (or in many cases, other peoples children and our own) to attend school. We just aren't getting our money's worth.

Parents already pay for their children to go to school - we all do. To my mind, this is as it should be: education is a national concern, every bit as important to the future of the country as defense. While my kids were educated in another country, I have no qualms about my tax money paying for future generations of this country - if that money is distributed efficiently and equitably. At the moment, it is not. And I do have a problem with that.

I still think that an idea I came across a year or so ago is one of the best ways around our current educational dilemma. This was one of a whole range of interesting proposals put forward by The New America Foundation, one of the most stimulating think tanks I've come across anywhere, in an article in Atlantic Monthly. It's also included in their book, The Real State of the Union.

I raised this in a old debate on vouchers and it seemed to garner a bit of interest at the time. Essentially, it applies the Pell grant model to primary and secondary schools. As I outlined the proposal in the thread mentioned above:
This would, of course, mean making the administration of education even more of a federal undertaking than it already is (which could send some people here to an early grave), but their role would primarily be disbursing funds with a minimum of bureaucracy. It would also mean that a lot of the revenue which individual states currently put into education could either be rebated to their citizens or put into other state and local infrastructure - or both.

Schools would necessarily improve their performance or - driven by the market in students - they would simply lose their funding. This could only benefit the students - and encourage parents to pay very close attention to how their money was being spent.

Not only would this address the imbalance between school districts within states, it would also address the imbalance in education funding between states. And, for once, the massive subsidy of all those "red states" by the few "blue states" would be put to good and equitable use.

This proposal would not only eliminate a lot of the bureaucracy decried by the right and expand the range of choice for individual students; it would also guarantee the rights of every student in the country equally. While there's something in this for both the right and the left to love, neither side will like everything about it. But there's a possibility that both sides like the status quo even less...

Having just exited the public schooling system I think I can add something...
My graduating class is the second class (the first was 2003) to get total budget cuts every year K-12. I can't accurately describe what it's like to have gone through every year watching your schools being hacked apart by bad finance. I have ever since the beginning wondered; "Why do Portland Public Schools have to make massive budget cuts every single year for thirteen years straight when every single highschool in the cities surrounding portland are being remodeled or are buying new buildings?" I have had the economics explained to me but I forget. It doesn't really matter when your twelve, or even sixteen, and the rich kids in "Tigard" get a brand new school while yours is falling apart, there is a negative impact on ones ego. That's not much for argumentation.

Im actually for socializing schools, keeping the government in but making sure it does it's job instead of selling the kids souls to Pepsi-Co. and paying for their administrators gas money. Public schooling is terrible because it is terribly run. Not by the teachers and staff but by the beaurocracy. I can't say this for all public school systems, but I can for mine.

If the government was doing it's job and actually focusing on the education of the kids in Palm Beach equally with those in Harlem. The socio-economic climate should not effect a public school except in regards to taxation flux (like a mass exodus into a certain area would imbalance the system etc, there are exceptions) What the federal government, the state government , the county government, and the city government put in should go to a equal share of hands.

If I am miss-judging this, my econimist friends out there, please tell me. I'd feel less cheated.

The problem with this is that we are a society of mutually cooperating individuals, not just a society set up for the producer and only his/her interests. Being for the "common good" means to try and spread the benefits of a good education to everyone and not to some entity that somehow, is entitled to not participate in the public commons.



Only 9% of federal funding goes to K-12 education. The Elementary and Secondary Education Act was only meant to help supplement, not supplant, state and local funding. The states could do away with federal help, but they choose every year to take money for special education funding and help for other students that is very burdensome to the local level, and often times, is called for by those at the local level.




By producers are you talking about business? Isn't there enough tax credits, overseas banking accounts, tax write-offs and other gimmicks to help them out with the burden of paying a property tax to fund education? Are the producers supposed to receive their employees fully educated without a cost? Is the producer merely to receive lawyers, accountants, secretaries, and other workers fully educated for free??

[QUOTE]How about a voluntary education tax which could not be diverted to non-education needs? All income from this tax, would go to local school districts to use those funds as needed. Are we so afraid that not enough people would willingly support such a program?[QUOTE]

The problem with this is that it would be hard to year by year, know specifically the funds that you will be able to access for education. If you have major fluctuations in funding and have no clue how to prepare, then you are jeopardizing education. How is an administrator to plan for building repairs, staff salary, staff compensation, transportation, SPED funding, as well as standards testing requirements if the budget keeps going up and down unpredictably? At least with our current system, an administrator can plan for upheavals ahead of time. We've had a public education system for most of our history. I understand that the drive to eliminate it is based on economic theories and ideologues who want their own model in place. At the same time, we must not forget that it was the founders(especially Jefferson) who laid the groundwork for publicly financed education in America.

I absolutely would support such a plan. I will say one thing though. There is a difference between military spending and education spending. The government is the only source of a legitimate military while education is a voluntary function of government which could be, conceivably done, by the private sector. What this means in terms of funding, I am not sure, but I do support that extension of taxation in priciple.

Public education was started with goals in mind. In writing about it, Jefferson had several lines of reasoning in proposing his plan for public education.



Public education replaced a "private" system in which every family was solely responsible for the education of their own children. This is just fine if you were a southern plantation owner who could afford a tutor, but those without financial gain were often left empty handed. The new england colonies had the south beat hands down in this regard as the Puritans helped set up schools in small districts.

Just a question for our privatizers-how many doctors, lawyers, social workers, teachers, nurses, accountants, business owners, and entrepeneurs have the public schools created? How many doctorates have our land grant university institutions handed out and the number of scholarly publications put in print since the end of the Civil War?

Here's a thought:

One of the primary considerations of homebuyers is the quality of available schools, particularly the quality of public schools. The quality of public schools has a direct and measurable value, and that is represented by a portion of the land value associated with property. I have no problem with land value taxes being used on education.

As for effectiveness...I have mixed opinions on what the most effective educational model would be. I tend to like the idea of vouchers, though I'd prefer to have partial vouchers: raised and administered from local, state, federal sources. Those states who wish to grant them, can; or they can merely fund public education. Likewise for the localities.

For vouchers to work, though, there has to be some discrete and defineable measure of a school's net productivity. How much 'smarter' were the students after a year of schooling? Even this isn't exactly accurate, either: mild progress in a student with severe learning disabilities is more 'productivity' than moderate progress in a gifted student. Some method of measuring this productivity must be made public, so parents could make an informed decision on where to send their child (and their child's vouchers).

Opponents of vouchers tend to think that it would just enable more rich white kids to leave the public school sytem, relegating public schools to minorities and the poor. I believe that, as long as a)good anti-discrimination laws exist and b)some accurate measurement system exists, this won't be a problem. Schools will 'compete' for 'under-valued' students, those that they can teach more efficiently than their competitor. Likewise, schools will be built to take the demand from public schools, especially if they compete on relatively equal tax-footing.

Even with vouchers, there's still opportunity to spend more money on education, however, as long as the vouchers are significantly valuable enough, it would be unneccessary for the vast majority.

Public education is one of those areas where it can be said with some confidence that society gets what it pays for.

I have had an opportunity to see the results of students being promoted when they have not learned the basics that will be required of them in the job market.

I have seen the downhill spiral of our grammar, syntax, and spelling just by watching the crawl and listening to the anchors on television. Now this is by no means fatal, but it is indicative of relaxed standards of education, the same relaxed standards that cause our students to place so low on the world education scale when it comes to math, science and geography.

The current President's solution was to promote an unfunded mandate, "No Child Left Behind." It is easy to make pronouncements such as this one which threaten to punish those teachers and administrators at under-performing schools. It's not so easy to empower those teachers and administrators to meet performance standards without providing help by way of improving the buildings, hiring more teachers, and supplying enough books and other materials in order for students to learn.

Many are joining the exodus to private schools, where they expect to escape paying for public schools because their children are no longer enrolled in them. But are there enough private schools for everyone? Certainly not. And if the students of these parents fortunate enough to afford private school go out into society at large and still find that there is rampant ignorance and crime, has the problem somehow been solved?

Public schools must not be abandoned; they must be improved. We will all suffer the consequences if we continue to deny public school systems what they need in order to adequately educate our future fellow-citizens.

The point I think you are missing ibelsd is that there would be no producers as you like to call them without education.

The United States has a vested interest in ensuring its citizens are well educated. If they are not then we lose our competitive advantage as far as innovation is concerned and the quality of those that hold jobs goes downhill leading to decreased production.

So while you are trying to paint this as a black and white capitalist thing, the whole system is really dependent on education in the first place.

We already pay, and we get what we pay for, especially when we don't pay attention to what we think we are paying for.
Quoting Woodrow Wilson, "We want one class of persons to have a liberal education, and we want another class of persons, a very much larger class of necessity in every society, to forgo the privilege of a liberal education and fit themselves to perform specific difficult manual tasks."
and quoting Harold Himmel Velde, former senator in the 50's, "Educating Americans throughout the means of the library service could bring about a change of their political attitude quicker than any other method. The basis of Communism and socialistic influence is education of the people". (He was speaking against mobile library service in rural areas)
Both quotes are from books by Howard Zinn.
With "leaders" like this determining in advance who will get the better education and keeping knowledge from the rest of us, it really doesn't matter who pays or how much is paid.
Things may be better now than in the times of Wilson and Velde, but it is still very much the responsibility of caring, educated, thinking, knowledgeable parents to make sure that their children know that there is more to learn than what the Public school system spoon feeds them. But I suppose that first the parents would have to educate themselves because the government surely isn't interested in an informed, educated electorate.

The NCLB is funded.



more

So they fund tests. That really helps.

Yeah, that's funding all right. That's like saying the government helps kids get to college by paying for them to take the SAT. And we all know how much that'll help when Mommy and Daddy can't afford the tuition anyway.

I want an education. So give me a test. That'll fix it.

How exactly, am I "missing" the importance of education? I merely suggested a means in which citizens could opt to utilize their taxes to pay for education or not. If it is as important as you believe it is, and others agree with you, then it will get funded. In either case, it would get the money it deserves.

I have had a discussion before on this subject with someone at work who saw himself as a "producer" or in his words, a "player". He considered only a few others as his peers, and everyone else as lesser contributors to the organization.
I also had the same discussion at another forum with a like minded person, in this case a ssuccessful self employed businessman, or so he described himself.
Both of these guys resent paying taxes in general and for some reason have a particularly deep resentment to paying for the education of other people's children. I can't say for the guy on the other forum, but the guy at work was single, and I suspect that he always will be.
I live near Sun City, AZ where they are excused from paying school taxes on their property because they have no schools. Occasionally the nearby communities will try to get them to pay at least something, and the "letters to the editor' in local papers will have some interesting arguments pro and con. Those elderly who write will make remarks like "I paid to have my kids educated, why should I pay for yours?" No way did most of them pay all of the expense of educating their own children, but they won't admit that. Others will say, "then based on your argument, since I am not retired, I should not have to pay into Social Security" that you retirees are enjoying".
Everybody benefits from the education of ALL our children. And the government has every right to have some say in how it gets done as well as the primary responsibility to see that it gets done. Now if they would just do it, really do it, and not just try to talk the issue to death.

Bill, without even realizing it, you hit upon the problem. Exactly who benefits from this shell game where the retired pay for the education of children, and the parents of children pay for the retirement of the old? Who is to claim that their need is greater than someone else's? Their is a logical conlcusion to the type of game you commend. Imagine, that your employer worked like the government. Everyone's pay was determined by need. Whoever had the greatest need would get the biggest paycheck. Those without need, but who could produce for the company would be asked to work longer hours to pay for the needds of their co-workers. It would be fair because everyone would vote. How do you think this experiment would end? Those who were hard workers would get shafted as they would be forced to work longer and longer hours. People would eventually compete to do less, so that they would be perceived of being most needy, and paid more. Is this not what the competition in government looks like right now? Even though education has shown no objective measures of getting worse in the last 10 years, someone the idea that education is getting worse is taken for granted. I don't blame educators by sticking by this myth. They know, they will get more money, not for doing a good job, but for failing. The old won't get better benefits be claiming they are well taken care of, but by claiming poverty and sickness. Roads don't get improved when we say they are crowded, but in pretty good shape. They only get funded when we note that they are falling apart and leaving communities nearly stranded. Think about the natural motivation for failure we are using the government to provide. There is a confidence game being pulled on the American people, Bill.

Wow, I hit upon the problem without realizing it? you are so wrong. I never said or commended any of that. It boggles my old, experience, and educated mind to think that there are more than a few people in the USA who think this way, and I have debated with 3 so far. As for monetary issues, I am most definitely for reward based on results, not for just attending and pretending, or being a fellow lodge member, fraternity brother, or related to some executive somewhere.

Back to education, some will go to school with an open mind and will learn all kinds of things, and perhaps even become enlightened at the same time. These are the ones who start off with an open mind.
Others will go to school and only learn those things which support their existing opinions of how things are, or should be. They remain in the dark, in their pitiful ignorance. They started with a closed mind, and nobody is going to force any part of it open. While at school, they are the ones who attend and pretend to be learning.

There will always be some who will not take advantage of educational opportunities, and there is not much we can do about that. But they make their choice and they usually suffer for it long term.

There is no confidence game here, just a bit of socialism at work, but only a bit. Well, maybe a bit too much. I know people of the type you complain about, and yes it galls me to see people doing little and getting the same or higher pay.
But refusing the public a chance at a decent education is not the fix. Of all the taxes that I pay, I will never resent the parts that fund education. It is what got me from dirt poor to middle class (lower socially perhaps, but upper middle class financially). Same for my wife. We both started out poor, and did well enough to make sure our children could attend college on our dime. We will retire well and enjoy our latter years and still have extra to help the grandchildren if needed.

BTW, who paid for your education?

I have no idea who paid for my education. I went to a public school, and when everything is said and done, since without children, I have certainly paid for the education of others for the last 10 years, who knows. I paid for my own college tution. I did not receive public assisstance, but I took out loans that I am paying or have paid back. That is not the point, though, and I would hope you know it. You recognize it is a little bit of socialism, but you fail to concede that socialism works in manner you yourself have said galls you when you see it in others. The question here is who should pay. My answer is that we bill those using the system while they are using it. Let's make education work in a manner that rewards success. Give parents a choice, let them decide who they wish to pay for the education of their children, and let them have a choice on to where they can get the best value for their children's education. Without children, how accountable can I make schools in education? I don't have any way to ensure my money is being spent wisely. Knowing little about what is happening in a classroom, how can be sure that money is being used in a manner that I approve? I might as well be purchasing land in China for mineral speculation. One would never advise anyone to make that type of investment, but here the government is demanding it. I have said it before, and I will say it again, I am NOT against education. I am against funding education, or any program, which feeds off of need and is rewarded by being ineffective. That is the crux of any socialist program. You have admitted to half of it, you just have to make the final step.

quoting ibelsd,
My answer is that we bill those using the system while they are using it.

There is no way that the property taxes I paid while our 2 children were in school would cover the costs. Your method would have increased it probably 10 times over.
If that happens, it would be so expensive for the years that you are using it that many who don't care would choose the cheapest method they can, and that just might be no education at all. Farmers in Idaho would pull their kids out of school as soon as they are able to drive a tractor, not caring that their kids might not want to be farmers when they grow up. The rich would be able to pay regardless of what the rest of us can afford, and after a few generations, there would be the few who are very rich, the many who are very poor, and not enough middle class to sustain either.
The system we have isn't perfect, but it does work for most of us.
You are spitting into the wind, my friend, and all you are gonna get is wet.

That is a beautiful doomsday scenario. Unlikely, but certain to strike fear in many who oppose state education. That's cool Bill. That is pretty much what drives socialism. Fear. If the state doesn't do it, people will drop dead from boredom, stupidity, and hunger. It is amazing anyone but the super rich get a college degree what with all the ignorant farmers forcing their kids to drive tractors instead of sending them to school. People have the freedom to have children, raise them how they see fit, but they do not have the right to make me help them. Except, that more and more laws are being passed which give them that right. You act as though private citizens wouldn't set up funds for kids to attend schools, let's call them grants. You act like private schools wouldn't set up special funds to lure bright kids from diverse backgrounds. Let's call those scholarships. Now, even colleges have public universities, but those schools run on more than just public funds. They require tuition to attend and they get private donations. Since a K-12 school is probably cheaper to run than a college university, the amount of public funding would only need to be minimal. Here is the best part. The best schools could charge more, would get more applicants, and would, in short, be rewarded for doing a good job. The would not get increased funding only after showing they were inept. I'll spit in the wind and catch my own saliva. I just don't want to be caught downwind while someone else is spitting.