Plain Old Petunia
Senior Member
bloom where you are planted
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 2:09:44 GMT -5
Posts: 4,840
|
Post by Plain Old Petunia on Feb 24, 2011 20:04:49 GMT -5
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. Yes, it does come from somewhere; namely tax dollars. When I send in my tax dollars, they aren't mine anymore. They become public funds. They pay for those things which we (collective we) have decided are a good use of public dollars. What I'm hearing from you is that your tax dollars buy services for you. That wouldn't be a tax, that would be a purchase.
|
|
Miss Tequila
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 19, 2010 10:13:45 GMT -5
Posts: 20,602
|
Post by Miss Tequila on Feb 24, 2011 20:05:41 GMT -5
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. You are a social liberal but you sound very much like a fiscal conservative....it's ok, I won't tell Loop
|
|
Sum Dum Gai
Senior Associate
Joined: Aug 15, 2011 15:39:24 GMT -5
Posts: 19,892
|
Post by Sum Dum Gai on Feb 24, 2011 20:08:43 GMT -5
What I'm hearing from you is that your tax dollars buy services for you. That wouldn't be a tax, that would be a purchase. Not when it comes to local taxes. My city sales tax is to pay for services for residents of my city. Not other people in different cities, not the people in the neighboring city, not even the people who live outside the city limits and escape the tax, although they always get pretty much the same benefits without paying anyway, it's for the residents of the city only. In places that still have local funding of education it's the same thing. The people in the district, whose tax money actually pays for district, are the only ones who should be getting those services. Not somebody from another district who lies to steal those services without paying.
|
|
Sum Dum Gai
Senior Associate
Joined: Aug 15, 2011 15:39:24 GMT -5
Posts: 19,892
|
Post by Sum Dum Gai on Feb 24, 2011 20:09:33 GMT -5
I've always been fiscally conservative. Loop calls me heartless, I call it being realistic.
|
|
Plain Old Petunia
Senior Member
bloom where you are planted
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 2:09:44 GMT -5
Posts: 4,840
|
Post by Plain Old Petunia on Feb 24, 2011 20:10:59 GMT -5
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. I don't believe anyone has suggested people shouldn't be allowed to buy something better. That's what private schools are for. No one buys a public education, it is paid for with tax dollars.
|
|
Plain Old Petunia
Senior Member
bloom where you are planted
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 2:09:44 GMT -5
Posts: 4,840
|
Post by Plain Old Petunia on Feb 24, 2011 20:26:44 GMT -5
What I'm hearing from you is that your tax dollars buy services for you. That wouldn't be a tax, that would be a purchase. Not when it comes to local taxes. My city sales tax is to pay for services for residents of my city. Not other people in different cities, not the people in the neighboring city, not even the people who live outside the city limits and escape the tax, although they always get pretty much the same benefits without paying anyway, it's for the residents of the city only. In places that still have local funding of education it's the same thing. The people in the district, whose tax money actually pays for district, are the only ones who should be getting those services. Not somebody from another district who lies to steal those services without paying. Which services does your city sales tax fund? Are visitors from out of town prohibited from using those services? Do the parents pay the full cost of the public school education via their property taxes? Do their property taxes begin when their child enrolls in school and end when their child graduates?
|
|
Sum Dum Gai
Senior Associate
Joined: Aug 15, 2011 15:39:24 GMT -5
Posts: 19,892
|
Post by Sum Dum Gai on Feb 24, 2011 20:28:18 GMT -5
No one buys a public education, it is paid for with tax dollars. Actually, all tax payers buy a public education. They don't grow tax dollars on trees yanno? In some places they pay more in taxes, and get a better education. In others they pay less in taxes and get a worse education.
|
|
Sum Dum Gai
Senior Associate
Joined: Aug 15, 2011 15:39:24 GMT -5
Posts: 19,892
|
Post by Sum Dum Gai on Feb 24, 2011 20:29:55 GMT -5
Are visitors from out of town prohibited from using those services? Not even remotely the same thing. A visitor from out of town uses the service for a short time, during their visit. They don't lie and say they live in town to use the service every day for years. If they were found to be doing that, they'd be charged with fraud and sent a bill for the services rendered. Exactly the same thing that happens to parents who lie about their address to get their kids into another school district.
|
|
cubefarmer
Established Member
Joined: Dec 26, 2010 14:08:21 GMT -5
Posts: 443
|
Post by cubefarmer on Feb 24, 2011 20:54:26 GMT -5
You have to bring in an original water bill or lease agreement to enroll in school here. I would recommend private school.
|
|
Plain Old Petunia
Senior Member
bloom where you are planted
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 2:09:44 GMT -5
Posts: 4,840
|
Post by Plain Old Petunia on Feb 24, 2011 21:06:06 GMT -5
No one buys a public education, it is paid for with tax dollars. Actually, all tax payers buy a public education. They don't grow tax dollars on trees yanno? In some places they pay more in taxes, and get a better education. In others they pay less in taxes and get a worse education. I almost agree, all taxpayers pay for public education. No one is required to buy public education (K-12 anyway). And yes, I do know they don't grow on trees.
|
|
Plain Old Petunia
Senior Member
bloom where you are planted
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 2:09:44 GMT -5
Posts: 4,840
|
Post by Plain Old Petunia on Feb 24, 2011 21:09:53 GMT -5
A local woman was put in jail because she lied about where she lived; she used her dad's address as her primary residence so her child would be in a "better" school district. The child was removed from the school, and the mother owes tuition to that district for the time that her daughter attended. The mother said she cannot afford to pay the tuition bill, and the district is suing her for the money. I remember that news story or one like it. I think it is outrageous.
|
|
Plain Old Petunia
Senior Member
bloom where you are planted
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 2:09:44 GMT -5
Posts: 4,840
|
Post by Plain Old Petunia on Feb 24, 2011 21:11:02 GMT -5
Are visitors from out of town prohibited from using those services? Not even remotely the same thing. A visitor from out of town uses the service for a short time, during their visit. They don't lie and say they live in town to use the service every day for years. If they were found to be doing that, they'd be charged with fraud and sent a bill for the services rendered. Exactly the same thing that happens to parents who lie about their address to get their kids into another school district. What are the services?
|
|
Miss Tequila
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 19, 2010 10:13:45 GMT -5
Posts: 20,602
|
Post by Miss Tequila on Feb 24, 2011 21:20:04 GMT -5
You have to bring in an original water bill or lease agreement to enroll in school here. I would recommend private school. You can buy a lease agreement from Office Max for $20...if the lease states that all utilities are included then they can't deman a bill...not saying I approve of this tactic but it certainly isn't that difficult to pull off.
|
|
2kids10horses
Senior Member
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 20:15:09 GMT -5
Posts: 2,759
|
Post by 2kids10horses on Feb 24, 2011 21:27:22 GMT -5
Let's revisit the OP's original topic: Should she lie and let her friend use her address to allow her friend's kid go to a better school?
I say no.
Her friend knowingly bought a house in a poor school district. Now the kid needs to go to school. Around here, that means Kindergarten. The kid is 5 years old.
Assuming she (the mother) had no children when she bought the house, she's now had 5 years to figure out that the child is going to need to go to school, and she's had 5 years to sell the house and move to a better school district.
Now, about all this discussion about shouldn't all children be entitled to a superior education...
No.
The public school system was created so that workers would have some abilty to be able to work in the factories as the country changed from being an agrarian society to an urban manufacting society. Public education was designed to be a minimum level of education to provide factory workers for the industrial revolution. It was not designed to give everyone a "college prep" education. If it did, there would be no factory workers!
I believe that if you can't afford to pay for the education you want for your children, you shouldn't have children. Don't expect others to pay for your children's education.
|
|
whoisjohngalt
Junior Associate
Joined: Dec 18, 2010 14:12:07 GMT -5
Posts: 9,140
|
Post by whoisjohngalt on Feb 24, 2011 21:57:13 GMT -5
Yes, let's compare schools 200 yrs ago with schools today. There ARE NO factory workers left in US, they all moved to China. So, what do you suggest? Anyone who is not college material shouldn't attend K-12???
And are you saying that parents should pay for any and all education? This should be interesting, considering we have a very large % of population who can not even pay for food and clothing for their children.
Lena
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 18, 2024 1:37:33 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 24, 2011 22:16:56 GMT -5
Lena:
But if you CAN afford to pay for your child's education but chose to buy a house in a cheaper area? Should people be prohibited from paying extra for a better education? Should their extra be used to pay for your child's?
When people buy houses in good school districts, they definitely pay a premium. All kids should get an "adequate" education. That is the purpose of NCLB. But parents pay for the superior education . . . like they pay for better food than perhaps can be bought with food stamps, better health care than can be gotten at the local health clinic, etc.
If you deny them the right to improve their school system, you won't improve the poorer child's school. You will lower public education to the lowest denominator. People will reject the additional millage. And you will get the schools that are currently in South Alabama where most people choose to pay for private school since they aren't paying adequate local taxes.
|
|
NastyWoman
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 24, 2010 20:50:37 GMT -5
Posts: 14,418
|
Post by NastyWoman on Feb 24, 2011 22:31:15 GMT -5
Not when it comes to local taxes. My city sales tax is to pay for services for residents of my city. Not other people in different cities, not the people in the neighboring city, not even the people who live outside the city limits and escape the tax, although they always get pretty much the same benefits without paying anyway, it's for the residents of the city only. In places that still have local funding of education it's the same thing. The people in the district, whose tax money actually pays for district, are the only ones who should be getting those services. Not somebody from another district who lies to steal those services without paying.[/quote]
So Hoop, if a hypothetical child that you won't allow into your schools because its parents aren't paying into the right pot of money, becomes the world's foremost expert on cancer and you get this disease, would it then be cheating for you to go to this specialist? You refused to pay for his education! Or maybe you should you be charged triple because of your refusal? Or for that matter, should any person who never had a child in public school get services for free since they paid for it with their property tax (yeah me!!!)?
You seem to want to ignore that society gets a lot more out of education than just a well-educated child. The benefits of this education are enjoyed by all of us.
|
|
whoisjohngalt
Junior Associate
Joined: Dec 18, 2010 14:12:07 GMT -5
Posts: 9,140
|
Post by whoisjohngalt on Feb 24, 2011 22:44:06 GMT -5
Susana, My completely unrealistic idea is that all schools K-12 should be fairly the same. We shouldn't have "better" or "worse" public schools. Yes, I know it's a pipe dream, but I just don't understand how we can be applying the same rules to elementary education as we do to other things.
I guess I have not been explaining myself well enough all this time, bc my simple point is that any 6 yr old should be able to get a fairly decent education regardless of what his mother can afford.
Look, we just bought a house in a fairly expensive area. We looked for 2 yrs bc me and my DH couldn't agree. He cared more about the house itself and all I cared about is location and school district bc I have 2 kids and one on the way. (I am considering homeschooling, but that's completely irrelevant). Schools were SUPER important to me. We surely paid premium for the house bc of the location. My property taxes are $10K/yr!!!!! Do I want to be paying this much? Nope. But I also didn't want to risk of having crappy schools where I live. Is it fair that I should have to pay more just bc school "next door" is crappy??
People shouldn't be prohibited from paying for better education, but they also shouldn't be prohibited from getting a good education bc they can't pay for it. And I am ONLY talking about K-12.
Lena
|
|
Sum Dum Gai
Senior Associate
Joined: Aug 15, 2011 15:39:24 GMT -5
Posts: 19,892
|
Post by Sum Dum Gai on Feb 24, 2011 22:47:54 GMT -5
You refused to pay for his education! Why don't you pay for it if it's so important to you? Why don't the kids parents, grandparents, aunts, uncles, etc? Why is it ok for you to decide how I should spend my money, but I can't tell you to spend your own money for the things that benefit you and your family? You seem to want to ignore that society gets a lot more out of education than just a well-educated child. The benefits of this education are enjoyed by all of us. And you all want to ignore that there's also a cost that comes along with letting everyone in. Most "good" schools have smaller class sizes than bad ones. That obviously goes away if you let a bunch of additional kids in. Some of these kids are coming from families where education isn't valued, study time and homework aren't made a priority, the kids home life might suck so bad they can barely function in school. Part of the reason more affluent people tend to herd together is to avoid problems like that. You want them in your children's school, bully for you, go live in the projects you'll save a bundle. I personally don't, and I'm willing to pay a premium to avoid it. Last I checked we still lived in a free country where people can make those kind of choices without government interference. Besides, lets again look at reality. If you open up all public schools and the lower achieving students start swamping the formerly better schools the parents with means will pull their children out and put them in private school, while simultaneously opposing any and all tax increases or additional school funding, since their families are no longer benefiting. The poorer kids will still get a worse education, the more affluent kids will still get a better one, and the public schools will probably lose funding overall, or have to spend more of it on busing and stuff. It's a no win game. You can't force people with other opportunities to short change their children for some ideal of fairness. I'll always do whatever I can to give my kids a leg up. Unless we go to a completely communist like economy, my kids will have opportunities that poor kids don't. Nature of the freakin beast.
|
|
2kids10horses
Senior Member
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 20:15:09 GMT -5
Posts: 2,759
|
Post by 2kids10horses on Feb 24, 2011 22:49:02 GMT -5
Quite the contrary, Lena, my point is if you want to get a college prep education for your child, you should be prepared to either give it to your child yourself, or pay for it to be done. The Public Schools were not designed to provide for college prep educations.
They were designed to give the masses a minimal education to get a job. I am aware that the factorys of 1900 have been moved to China. However, I also believe that our Public High Schools do an excellent job of preparing their graduates for careers at McDonalds, stockers at WalMart, and grocery store checkout clerks.
Lena, I used to live in Atlanta. The public schools there are horrible. Yes, there are a few good ones in the really nice neighborhood, but even there they bus kids in from "under-priviledged neighborhoods". No one, by the way, gets bussed out. But, you know what? Many of the parents in the neighborhood with the top Public Schools pay to send their kids to private school! So, not only are they taxed, they pay tuition in addition to their school tax. Tuition runs about $15,000 per year. And competition is tough.
I have two kids. The oldest got in a private school. My youngest did not. He's just not as competitive. A good kid, but his personality type is more cooperative rather than competitive. So, he got passed over. So, we moved. My wife and I researched the state, and found which area we thought had the best Public Schools, and we sold our house in Atlanta, and moved to where we found the best Public School system we could find.
Is it as good as the private schools back in Atlanta? No, but my oldest is taking AP classes, and my youngest (who wasn't competitive in Atlanta) is now taking Honors classes.
The money I would have spent for Private schools has been set aside for college.
Also... my wife and I waited until we were financially ready to be able to support our kids in the manner we wanted to be able to support them before we had them.
And one more thing... our county is divided, that is, there are a lot more Hispanics in one part than the other. There is only one High School but there are two Middle Schools. The Middle School in the Hispanic area has problems with gangs and violence. The other does not. Just saying...
|
|
whoisjohngalt
Junior Associate
Joined: Dec 18, 2010 14:12:07 GMT -5
Posts: 9,140
|
Post by whoisjohngalt on Feb 24, 2011 22:50:03 GMT -5
And just so you know - I don't believe in "equality" for all, and all that other socialism garbage. I very much stand for "you get what you worked for" and no one owes you anything.
But when it comes to children and education, I just can't see how having such wide separation of quality is doing us any good. I hate the idea that a 6 yr old could have a different life and different potential at a future if he was just at a different school. But, I guess that's life.
Lena
|
|
whoisjohngalt
Junior Associate
Joined: Dec 18, 2010 14:12:07 GMT -5
Posts: 9,140
|
Post by whoisjohngalt on Feb 24, 2011 22:57:21 GMT -5
2K10H,
I agree with you with all my heart. But here is the problem - we have HUGE HUGE HUGE population of people who are having kids like it's the only past-time they know, who don't care about taking care of them, they can barely feed them, much less think of their education
But once they have that kid, now what? By letting all those children go un and under-educated we are creating more and more problems for the future and the country as a whole. They won't know any better, they won't see any better and they won't learn any better. So, 20,30,40 yrs from now, we'll have even larger population of those who can't take care of themselves.
I am the last person on Earth who wants to pay for others, but out govt is spending billions and billions on such stupid and useless programs, why not revamp education system. Not with that moronic NCLB act, but with something useful.
Lena
|
|
2kids10horses
Senior Member
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 20:15:09 GMT -5
Posts: 2,759
|
Post by 2kids10horses on Feb 24, 2011 23:06:04 GMT -5
Lena,
Under your logic, it's just not fair that you weren't born to the Queen of England! Why should Prince Charles live his lifestyle when other kids in England do not?
Life is not fair.
I will agree, however, that if a child works hard in school, he or she should be able to advance to improve his circumstances. Schools where the majority of the kids are not disruptive and want to learn will obviously provide a better educational environment. If you live in an area that has a good school, then use it.
However, part of our job as parents is to help our children, and if I see that my child would not get the education I want him/her to get, if it requires that I move my residence, I move.
In Atlanta, it was so bad the teachers cheated on the CRCT tests that are supposed to measure the kids learning acheivements. They couldn't teach the kids, so they cheated on the testing to make it look like they did.
I was not going to subject my kids to that kind of environment. So, we moved.
|
|
Plain Old Petunia
Senior Member
bloom where you are planted
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 2:09:44 GMT -5
Posts: 4,840
|
Post by Plain Old Petunia on Feb 24, 2011 23:15:10 GMT -5
Let's revisit the OP's original topic: Should she lie and let her friend use her address to allow her friend's kid go to a better school? I say no. Her friend knowingly bought a house in a poor school district. Now the kid needs to go to school. Around here, that means Kindergarten. The kid is 5 years old. Assuming she (the mother) had no children when she bought the house, she's now had 5 years to figure out that the child is going to need to go to school, and she's had 5 years to sell the house and move to a better school district. Now, about all this discussion about shouldn't all children be entitled to a superior education... No. The public school system was created so that workers would have some abilty to be able to work in the factories as the country changed from being an agrarian society to an urban manufacting society. Public education was designed to be a minimum level of education to provide factory workers for the industrial revolution. It was not designed to give everyone a "college prep" education. If it did, there would be no factory workers! I believe that if you can't afford to pay for the education you want for your children, you shouldn't have children. Don't expect others to pay for your children's education. When your kids go to public school, you are not paying for their education, taxpayers are.
|
|
2kids10horses
Senior Member
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 20:15:09 GMT -5
Posts: 2,759
|
Post by 2kids10horses on Feb 24, 2011 23:17:49 GMT -5
Lena, I just saw your post #143.
Unfortunately, I cannot change the current education system. But I do have two kids to educate. So I did what I thought best.
I believe that parents should be given school vouchers, that allows them to spend their education dollars at whatever school they want. The voucher should be pay for 100% of Public School, whatever that may be. The dollar value should be able to be spent at whatever Private School the parent chooses (and the kid be accepted at) and the parent make up any difference in cost.
I believe this would drive the poor schools out. I believe more private schools would be started, and parents would have more choices.
In fact, I would prefer it if there were NO public schools, only private schools, and parents were given vouchers to spend for schooling however they wished. I'd really prefer that the government have no role in educating my children!
|
|
2kids10horses
Senior Member
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 20:15:09 GMT -5
Posts: 2,759
|
Post by 2kids10horses on Feb 24, 2011 23:25:56 GMT -5
petunia,
I am paying for my children to go to public school as I own a lot of real estate. At least half of the property taxes I pay go to the local school system. I owned real estate when I was 24 years old. I was not married, I had no children. I paid property tax, and a lot of that tax was for the public schools.
I didn't have children until I was 40 years old. So for 16 years I paid for pubic schools for other people's children. Now, I have children. I'm still paying property taxes! When my children graduate from high school, I'll still be paying property taxes.
Tell me again how I'm not paying for their education?
Before you answer, I'll let you know that the school portion of the property taxes I pay exceed the cost of educating two students in our county. So, not only am I paying for my kids education, I'm helping to pay for someone else's.
|
|
Plain Old Petunia
Senior Member
bloom where you are planted
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 2:09:44 GMT -5
Posts: 4,840
|
Post by Plain Old Petunia on Feb 24, 2011 23:27:54 GMT -5
You refused to pay for his education! Why don't you pay for it if it's so important to you? Why don't the kids parents, grandparents, aunts, uncles, etc? Why is it ok for you to decide how I should spend my money, but I can't tell you to spend your own money for the things that benefit you and your family? You seem to want to ignore that society gets a lot more out of education than just a well-educated child. The benefits of this education are enjoyed by all of us. And you all want to ignore that there's also a cost that comes along with letting everyone in. Most "good" schools have smaller class sizes than bad ones. That obviously goes away if you let a bunch of additional kids in. Some of these kids are coming from families where education isn't valued, study time and homework aren't made a priority, the kids home life might suck so bad they can barely function in school. Part of the reason more affluent people tend to herd together is to avoid problems like that. You want them in your children's school, bully for you, go live in the projects you'll save a bundle. I personally don't, and I'm willing to pay a premium to avoid it. Last I checked we still lived in a free country where people can make those kind of choices without government interference. Besides, lets again look at reality. If you open up all public schools and the lower achieving students start swamping the formerly better schools the parents with means will pull their children out and put them in private school, while simultaneously opposing any and all tax increases or additional school funding, since their families are no longer benefiting. The poorer kids will still get a worse education, the more affluent kids will still get a better one, and the public schools will probably lose funding overall, or have to spend more of it on busing and stuff. It's a no win game. You can't force people with other opportunities to short change their children for some ideal of fairness. I'll always do whatever I can to give my kids a leg up. Unless we go to a completely communist like economy, my kids will have opportunities that poor kids don't. Nature of the freakin beast. Dark, Lena is paying for this hypothetical child's education. So are you. So is everyone. Why are we paying for a substandard education? Wouldn't it make more sense all around to demand a decent education?
|
|
Plain Old Petunia
Senior Member
bloom where you are planted
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 2:09:44 GMT -5
Posts: 4,840
|
Post by Plain Old Petunia on Feb 24, 2011 23:40:59 GMT -5
petunia, I am paying for my children to go to public school as I own a lot of real estate. At least half of the property taxes I pay go to the local school system. I owned real estate when I was 24 years old. I was not married, I had no children. I paid property tax, and a lot of that tax was for the public schools. I didn't have children until I was 40 years old. So for 16 years I paid for pubic schools for other people's children. Now, I have children. I'm still paying property taxes! When my children graduate from high school, I'll still be paying property taxes. Tell me again how I'm not paying for their education? Before you answer, I'll let you know that the school portion of the property taxes I pay exceed the cost of educating two students in our county. So, not only am I paying for my kids education, I'm helping to pay for someone else's. You've just described for me how you are not paying specifically for your children's education. Your property taxes began when you bought property, even though you had no children. Your property taxes did not rise when you enrolled your first child in school. Your property taxes did not rise when you enrolled your second child in school. Your property taxes will not fall if you choose to send your children to some other school. Your property taxes will not fall once your children graduate from 12th grade. Your property taxes will continue to be due as long as you own the property. Should you choose to sell the property, the next owner will be responsible for paying them. Your property taxes are in fact assessed on your property, and are not affected at all by whether or not you have children attending school. Clearly, property taxes are a tax, not a fee for educational services rendered.
|
|
Plain Old Petunia
Senior Member
bloom where you are planted
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 2:09:44 GMT -5
Posts: 4,840
|
Post by Plain Old Petunia on Feb 24, 2011 23:43:40 GMT -5
Lena, I just saw your post #143. Unfortunately, I cannot change the current education system. But I do have two kids to educate. So I did what I thought best. I believe that parents should be given school vouchers, that allows them to spend their education dollars at whatever school they want. The voucher should be pay for 100% of Public School, whatever that may be. The dollar value should be able to be spent at whatever Private School the parent chooses (and the kid be accepted at) and the parent make up any difference in cost. I believe this would drive the poor schools out. I believe more private schools would be started, and parents would have more choices. In fact, I would prefer it if there were NO public schools, only private schools, and parents were given vouchers to spend for schooling however they wished. I'd really prefer that the government have no role in educating my children! I like the voucher system too. Schools would have to compete for "business". That's good for everyone.
|
|
2kids10horses
Senior Member
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 20:15:09 GMT -5
Posts: 2,759
|
Post by 2kids10horses on Feb 25, 2011 0:06:27 GMT -5
Petunia,
It is true that I am not paying tuition directly for my kids when they are in Public school. I did pay tuition directly to the pre-school my kids attended, and I did pay tuition to the private school my daughter attended for 2 years, in addition to the school portion of my property tax.
I don't know how they do it where you live, but where we live, our tax bills show what goes into the "general fund" and how much goes into the "school board" tax. Each part is assessed a milage based upon the value of my real estate.
The way the government has it set up, paying for public school is like paying for insurance. You pay whether you use it or not. If you never have an accident, you never collect on the insurance.
But, you are right, it IS a tax. It just so happens that I live in an expensive house. So, my tax is high. Always has been. I have contributed into the system more than the value of the tuition I would have had to pay. (For public school.)
But, I pay this tax to my county. It supports the schools my kids attend. I would not like it if kids from the next county over come to the schools I'm paying for! Those kids have not paid anything to support my schools!
I'm ok with the fact that someone in my county living in a trailer may only pay a fraction of what I'm paying. I don't LIKE it, as the costs to educate their kid is probably about the same as educating mine, and I'm paying more into the system because my house is more expensive than theirs, but that's the current system, so that's the way it goes. But, if someone from the next county wants to use our schools but isn't paying in to the county in taxes, that's not right.
|
|