Would you . . .

[hoops902]

"What if you couldn't afford that extra $100K? Does that mean that you children should go to a crappy school? Shouldn't you have an expectation that your children will have access to the same good education as those whose parents can afford extra $100K?"

Do you expect to obtain the same level of housing if you have $240K as someone who has $900K? There is a baseline level of education that people should expect, but there's absolutely nothing wrong with a group of people who come together and decide they want more than just the baseline level and are willing to pay for it.

[Sum Dum Gai]

What if you couldn't afford that extra $100K? Does that mean that you children should go to a crappy school?

In theory? No, of course not. All kids should get an exceptional public education regardless of family circumstances.

In reality, where we're all forced to live whether we like it or not, the people with the means will find a way to get their kids an edge in nearly everything, but education especially. It's just the way it is. Given that, obviously the people who spent the extra $100k are going to be miffed when somebody get's their kids the same edge for free through fraud.

[whoisjohngalt]

No, I don't expect the same housing but I absolutely, without any hesitations expect the same level and environment of education for my children. Give me one good reason why I shouldn't???

Lena

[Sum Dum Gai]

No, I don't expect the same housing but I absolutely, without any hesitations expect the same level and environment of education for my children. Give me one good reason why I shouldn't???

Because the taxes on my more expensive house are obviously going to be higher, which means my local school district gets more money per student to spend on things like having smaller class sizes, expanded art and music programs, more aids, higher qualified teachers, etc., etc. The poor neighborhood across town is paying a lot less but wants the same level of product. It just doesn't work that way.

Now in CA it's different. All property tax money goes to the state which distributes it to each school district based on student population. Back in the day the poor inner city school districts started whining about how unfair it was that they received so much less money per student than the richer districts. As a result of the change to state instead of locally controlled school funding, you got the property tax revolt in CA that set a hard ceiling of 1% on all property taxes. The rich people basically said, why the hell should I pay so much in higher taxes to educate kids hundreds of miles away. CA public schools have been steadily falling from first in the nation to near last ever since. Now we still see pockets of higher performing students, and family income is still the biggest determining factor in that. Only now instead of directly funding the local school through property taxes, we do it through school fund raisers, donations, and pricing lower income people (who by and large put less emphasis on academics) out of certain neighborhoods and districts.

The end result is still exactly the same as it was before they started mucking with local school control, except that on balance our schools are way worse off.

[Deleted]

What if you couldn't afford that extra $100K? Does that mean that you children should go to a crappy school? Shouldn't you have an expectation that your children will have access to the same good education as those whose parents can afford extra $100K?

And what if you could afford it but chose not to because you'd rather spend your $$$ on something else?

What might happen is what has happened in South Alabama. In many districts property taxes are set at the barest minimum. The vast majority of middle-class and above parents have abandoned the school systems in favor of sending their kids to private schools. It started as a racial thing 40 or 50 years ago, but now it's also about the quality of the schools. The schools down there are why Alabama has such a bad rap.

There was an equitable funding lawsuit many years ago that attempted to say that public school dollars should be redistributed. The wealthier school districts would provide funding that would be shared with the poorer school districts.

Additional school funding is voted on by taxpayers. If you think that people are going to charge themselves an additional $5000 of taxes a year but give $4000 of it away, you don't understand human nature very well.

I don't know how the lawsuit ended. I know the judge determined the funding formula wasn't equitable (affluent areas not only have higher taxes but their property values in general are of higher value, which automatically generates higher revenue). But I know that no one is sending local money to the state.

It is, of course, very sad that life isn't fair. But education is only one part of that unfairness. If you are born into poverty, it is hard to escape that. If a girl's mother is on welfare, there is a good chance that she will be as well.

I'd say my kids only got an average education even though they went to private school since the public schools were even worse. Parenting made the difference.

[whoisjohngalt]

I don't know why everyone is talking about property taxes like schools are the ONLY thing they pay for. They pay for a lot more than that. So, unless "you" can tell how much more "you" paying towards the schools vs someone living in $100K less house, that argument looses some of its validity.

And, let's say for argument sake, that it is 100% accurate and you pay thousands more towards the school that I do. So what??? If I am paying whatever I can afford, why shouldn't my kids get the same education as yours?

Yes, I understand that that's how it works. Doesn't make it right.

Lena

[hoops902]

"No, I don't expect the same housing but I absolutely, without any hesitations expect the same level and environment of education for my children. Give me one good reason why I shouldn't???"

Because saying "you get the same" is telling everyone else "sorry you want to buy something better, we won't allow it".

This is no different than forcing everyone into the same housing, the same transportation, the same food, the same clothes. If people want to buy something better with their money, they shouldn't be stopped just because you think you're entitled to have all the same stuff when you haven't earned it.

[whoisjohngalt]

Just like with food and medicine, I don't think children should pay for abilities or inabilities and even stupidity of their parents. There has to be a way that they can get decent education regardless of their parents' choices. That's all I am trying to say

Lena

[hoops902]

"So what??? If I am paying whatever I can afford, why shouldn't my kids get the same education as yours?"

So what if I'm paying what I can afford why shouldn't my kids live in the same kind of house that the children of billionaires live in. What you really want is a form of socialism/communism. Thankfully that's not how it works...yet.

[whoisjohngalt]

Well, Hoops, I don't put education on the same level as housing, clothes, etc. Again, I never said I am entitled to the same things you do, but I do think my children are entitled to the same education your children. Again, why shouldn't they???

Lena

[hoops902]

Feb 24, 2011 18:52:47 GMT -5 whoisjohngalt said:

Just like with food and medicine, I don't think children should pay for abilities or inabilities and even stupidity of their parents. There has to be a way that they can get decent education regardless of their parents' choices. That's all I am trying to say

Lena

Ok, who's gonna pay for it? Everyone seems to be tossing around "public education" by the government as some kind of magical money tree that gets its money from happy thoughts. That money comes from somewhere.

What you're saying is "you shouldn't get to spend your money on YOUR kids, you should have to spend YOUR money on MY kids". Not all of us agree with that line of thinking.

[whoisjohngalt]

OMG, never ever EVER say that I want socialism. I grew up with socialism, I am forever and ever allergic to it.

Lena

[Sum Dum Gai]

And, let's say for argument sake, that it is 100% accurate and you pay thousands more towards the school that I do. So what??? If I am paying whatever I can afford, why shouldn't my kids get the same education as yours?

Tell you what, try that logic with every other product you buy and tell us how it works out. Sorry Saks, I really want the jewelry for my wife, but I can only afford Walmart prices. Doesn't my wife deserve jewelry just as nice as all the rich ladies?

[hoops902]

Feb 24, 2011 18:55:00 GMT -5 whoisjohngalt said:

Well, Hoops, I don't put education on the same level as housing, clothes, etc. Again, I never said I am entitled to the same things you do, but I do think my children are entitled to the same education your children. Again, why shouldn't they???

Lena

Because I'm willing to pay for my kids to have a better education.

[whoisjohngalt]

As much as I am unti-govt programs, basic levels of education is something that should be done. The consequences of uneducated youth can be too damaging and too dangerous.

I HATE paying for other people, but this, just like food and medicine is too important to let it be.

And govt already is spending billions on education, they just do it in a stupid way that gets no results

Lena

[whoisjohngalt]

Because I'm willing to pay for my kids to have a better education.

Well, guess what? So am I, but I can't afford as much as you, now what? They should just be screwed bc of my bad choices, my inabilities, my whatever else?

Lena

[hoops902]

For the record, I've never said everyone's kids dont' deserve a base level of education. But the idea that it ALL has to be equal and not allowing anyone to buy something better is ridiculous.

[whoisjohngalt]

We are not talking about buying anything. There are certain things that should be somewhat accessible at a certain level. Good and safe child's education should be one of them.

Normally, I would agree with you if we weren't talking about those, IMHO, basic things.

OK, I am done. I don't know how else to continue this conversation.

Lena

[Sum Dum Gai]

There are certain things that should be somewhat accessible at a certain level. Good and safe child's education should be one of them.

That's fine, as long as we're all paying for it. Wanting equal outcomes for everybody but sending the bill to a minority is wrong. It's just as disgusting. Or in other words, poor people are going to need to pony up some of the cost of getting better education for their kids. I know they already have it rough, but you can't get something for nothing. Or more precisely, you can't get something worthwhile for nothing. You can get crappy public education for next to nothing. If you want better it's going to take some money.

Our current system is already set up this way really. There are plenty of decent charter and private schools that offer reduced tuition for low income kids. If mom and dad spent their beer and smokes money on tuition instead their kids wouldn't have to go to crappy public schools already. They don't make that choice though.

[Plain Old Petunia]

Feb 24, 2011 17:08:29 GMT -5 souldoubt said:

I don't know what different choices you're talking about. If parents can arbitrarily choose where kids go then parents of gifted/advanced/focused children aren't the only one's who will think their kids deserve a "better" school.

In California schools do get money based on attendance but that isn't the sole determinant. Schools in better areas might get more funding on a local level because it's funded by additional property taxes. If the citizens agree to pay those taxes for educational purposes then they shouldn't be paying them for the education of kids from out of the district. The sad truth is that under the current system schools game the system to get more funding. That isn't right at all but I don't think redistributing the money coming from local funding in the way of educating kids from out of the area is right either. [/quote]

I'm talking about choice of school. Yes, I understand that many parents will think their child deserves a better school and would vote with their feet. I think that would be fabulous. I don't see a problem with that at all.

The only direct school assessments I know of in California are those which fund voter-approved bonds. I don't know that financing a building automatically equates to a better education, though I do acknowledge that buildings are necessary. And I don't agree at all that because I am paying off a voter-approved bond, my child is entitled to a better education than some other child who's parents aren't.

[Plain Old Petunia]

Feb 24, 2011 17:45:01 GMT -5 Sum Dum Gai said:

I am finding it interesting that so many here feel that property tax dollars buy entrance into a particular school.

It's not really the property tax, it's the purchase price too. My house would have been about $100k less on the other side of town. Which has the worst public elementary school in the city, and goes to the poorer performing of the two junior highs as well. We knowingly paid an extra $100k for the house so that our kids could go to better schools, among other things. Does the system kind of suck? Sure. Once you've bought your way in though, of course you're going to resent anyone else using fraud to get in.

So what I am hearing is, if I am wealthy, my children are entitled to the very best the public schools can provide. If I am not wealthy, then my kids are entitled to whatever is left after the rich kids get theirs.

The reason public education was started was so that ALL children could have the best public education possible.

[Sum Dum Gai]

Well first off, we're totally not wealthy. The children of wealthy people are probably getting a much better education than ours are. We're better off than a lot of people, and I'm not going to feel guilty using some of that help my kids get a better education.

[Plain Old Petunia]

Feb 24, 2011 18:30:32 GMT -5 hoops902 said:

"I think that allowing you to send your child where you wish would force schools to compete for your "business". Where would that get us? Better schools! Competition breeds better products."

How does this get us better schools? There is no competition to compete for "our business" if it's not based on a situation where you have to pay to have your kid attend the school.

"I am finding it interesting that so many here feel that property tax dollars buy entrance into a particular school"

Because schools are based on districts, and teh school in the district is based upon where you live.

"How about federal income taxes? State income taxes? If you pay more in income taxes than I do, do you have more of a right to other public services? If you pay less in income taxes than I do, do you have less of a right to other public services? "

This isn't a relevant analogy. Regardless of how MUCH in property taxes a homeowner pays in a district, they are entitled to the same services. A homeowner who lives in District 1 and pays $10,000 in taxes has the same benefits that someone living in District 1 and paying $1,000 in property taxes.

In paying federal taxes we are all part of the same district (the US). Based on your argument it shouldn't matter what country we live in or pay taxes in, we should all just lie and use the services in other countries. By your logic it's totally ok if someone from Mexico comes to the US, pays no taxes, obtains fraudulent documentation, and uses up our medical services. The issue is not the AMOUNT of taxes paid, it's which district you are paying taxes in. By your argument people in City B should be able to call up City C and demand that a police officer comes to take their report of theft because they dont' feel like calling City B's police department. The AMOUNT of money you pay is not important, who you pay that money to IS.

I don't know if it is different in your state or not, but in my state, a school is paid $x per day per child in attendance, as well as paid for excused absences. So that is how competition would enter into the picture. If I choose to send my child to School A, then School A gets paid. If I coose to send my child to School B, then School B gets paid.

When I pay my county property taxes, the only part which goes directly to my local school district is the assessment for school bonds (issued to finance buildings). The local school gets paid based on attendance.

I agree that regardless of how much I pay, I am entitled to the same public services.

[Miss Tequila]

Feb 24, 2011 19:07:35 GMT -5 Sum Dum Gai said:

There are certain things that should be somewhat accessible at a certain level. Good and safe child's education should be one of them.

That's fine, as long as we're all paying for it. Wanting equal outcomes for everybody but sending the bill to a minority is wrong. It's just as disgusting. Or in other words, poor people are going to need to pony up some of the cost of getting better education for their kids. I know they already have it rough, but you can't get something for nothing. Or more precisely, you can't get something worthwhile for nothing. You can get crappy public education for next to nothing. If you want better it's going to take some money.

Our current system is already set up this way really. There are plenty of decent charter and private schools that offer reduced tuition for low income kids. If mom and dad spent their beer and smokes money on tuition instead their kids wouldn't have to go to crappy public schools already. They don't make that choice though.

And Loop tries to claim you are a liberal family

[Deleted]

Petunia, the reason why compulsory public education was started was so that kids wouldn't be competing with adults for jobs. They passed child labor laws, but what are you going to do with the kids? That may not have been the "public" reason given, but that was the motivation.

It was only in the 1970s that it became really about education of ALL students. Before that point, a lot of kids dropped out at 16. Special education students were warehoused at best or kept at home.

All students are entitled to a free and appropriate education. That's the law that underlies special education and IDEA. I had to take a special education class a couple of years ago because it wasn't required back in 1974. Federal education is all about special ed or minorities or povery (headstart). They really don't fund local education.

In other words, education isn't in the constitution. It is is the original special education act quoted above (free and appropriate). It doesn't have any comment on quality. NCLB does. It says schools should be punished if their special ed. students or ESL students can't achieve at the same level as their counterparts. I am not exaggerating. Most schools get around these subgroups because they don't have enough to test.

We think all people are entitled to basic health care. That may be at the County Clinic where you have to wait for hours. Your operation may be performed at the County Hospital (for the indigent) where the best doctors and latest machines aren't hanging out right now. Even with the children's health insurance program, you have to find a doctor that accepts it. Not all do.

The same is true of education. You are entitled to learn to read, write, and do arithmetic. We even insist on a certain level. But are you entitled to take engineering, law, or language courses up to the sixth year? Should you be offered almost every AP course imaginable?

You and Lena are right on when you say every child deserves an education. But that's a basic education just as we all deserve to be able to eat. But the taxpayers don't have to buy me filet mignon. I'll have to provide that myself. Plenty of poorer people work as lunchroom workers or bus drivers to get their kids good educations (being able to attend within the school system is usually a perk).

ETA: compulsory. The first colonists started schools for religious reasons.

[Plain Old Petunia]

Feb 24, 2011 18:33:37 GMT -5 hoops902 said:

"What if you couldn't afford that extra $100K? Does that mean that you children should go to a crappy school? Shouldn't you have an expectation that your children will have access to the same good education as those whose parents can afford extra $100K?"

Do you expect to obtain the same level of housing if you have $240K as someone who has $900K? There is a baseline level of education that people should expect, but there's absolutely nothing wrong with a group of people who come together and decide they want more than just the baseline level and are willing to pay for it.

The 240k house and the 900k house weren't bought with public dollars, they were bought with private dollars.

I agree that there is nothing wrong with a group of people who come together wanting more and are willing to pay for it. That's exactly what private schools are. I am not arguing that private schools should be open to all irrespective of ability to pay.

[Deleted]

I agree that there is nothing wrong with a group of people who come together wanting more and are willing to pay for it. That's exactly what private schools are. I am not arguing that private schools should be open to all irrespective of ability to pay.

Aren't the people who pay higher taxes so that their kids have the best schools basically paying for private schools? Don't they fit your definition of "a group of people who come together wanting more and are willing to pay for it"? In my state, you get X dollars to fund education, and it doesn't go very far. The best educations are supplemented by local funding. These people are paying special assessments specifically for education.

How is that really different from private education except that they are willing to admit anyone who lives in their district.

[Sum Dum Gai]

And Loop tries to claim you are a liberal family

I think gays should absolutely have a right to marriage, women should have the right to terminate an unwanted pregnancy, and the bible is just a story book, so I must be a liberal.

[Sum Dum Gai]

Don't they fit your definition of "a group of people who come together wanting more and are willing to pay for it"?

Exactly. The people paying a premium to buy a house in a better school district are a group of people coming together and paying more to get more.

[chemnerd99]

Amen Suzanna, I'm in mobile, AL, when we bought our house they said property taxes are $600. I said per month right and they said nope, per year. Obviously we are sending our children to private schools. We have no choice. I would much rather spend the $800/month in two roths.