Will this usher in socialism?

[AVG-JOE]

If it is a viable governmental pursuit then that is what taxes are for. I'm more than fine with paying taxes for BASIC and LIMITED government function, national defense, passable infrastructure, law enforcement, and national standards. But nothing else, including ALL social programs, and entitlements. None of those are viable purposes of government.

... And now for the 'civilized' question:

If three fourths of your neighbors believed that educating the public through high school is an affordable and worthwhile entitlement, would you revolt against paying those taxes? We're assuming that the only thing that makes it affordable is the fact that the cost is split among everyone in the form of a tax.

How 'democratic' are you?

-Joe

 

[Bern80]

... And now for the 'civilized' question:

If three fourths of your neighbors believed that educating the public through high school is an affordable and worthwhile entitlement, would you revolt against paying those taxes? We're assuming that the only thing that makes it affordable is the fact that the cost is split among everyone in the form of a tax.

How 'democratic' are you?

-Joe

One could, I suppose, argue that as a parent your responsible for the growth of your children and their education and thus financially responsible for it. Your scenario above doesn't really negate that because you are paying for it through your property taxes. The problem is for those people that choose to pay for their children's education via a private institution. They are essentially paying twice for their child's education as they are paying for their education in tuition plus paying property tax for the public system they chose to forgoe. The only thing I would change is to have a tax credit for those that choose to use private education for their children.

 

[editec]

Speaking as professional educator, dismantle public schools so that teacher can get paid on based on merit.

Speaking as a citizen who loves this republic, keep public schools alive and thriving and to hell with private schools.

 

[sealybobo]

Speaking as professional educator, dismantle public schools so that teacher can get paid on based on merit.

Speaking as a citizen who loves this republic, keep public schools alive and thriving and to hell with private schools.

God I agree. Fuck private schools. Those schools can discriminate so they should get NOTHING from us. I only want to pay into public schools.

 

[Bern80]

God I agree. Fuck private schools. Those schools can discriminate so they should get NOTHING from us. I only want to pay into public schools.

Are you being sarcastic? How do they discriminate? If you only want to pay via taxes for public schools, fine, it's already set up that way. But why is it fair for parents that choose to pay for private education to also pay for public education they aren't using?

 

[sealybobo]

Are you being sarcastic? How do they discriminate? If you only want to pay via taxes for public schools, fine, it's already set up that way. But why is it fair for parents that choose to pay for private education to also pay for public education they aren't using?

Because everyone pays for public schools. I don't have kids and I pay. And those parents probably went to public schools. Anyways, it is something that EVERYONE in the community pays for.

If you have money to go to private schools, great, but that doesn't mean you're going to take your money from the public schools. We need to be putting more money in public schools, not taking more out.

And a private school can discriminate against anyone they want. That's why they are private. If it is a Catholic school, they can get away with not letting in non Catholics. They can get away with not admitting minorities.

 

[Bern80]

Because everyone pays for public schools. I don't have kids and I pay. And those parents probably went to public schools. Anyways, it is something that EVERYONE in the community pays for.

Just because that's they way it is doesn't mean it's right. I'm also simply making an argument. One can also argue that an educated populace is good for society as whole thus everyone should pay for it. And regardless of what you choose for your children, public or private, EVERYONE is still paying for education. Those paying for private are just doing it more directly, you could also argue they are taking a greater responsiblity for their children by actively seeking superior eductation.

If you have money to go to private schools, great, but that doesn't mean you're going to take your money from the public schools. We need to be putting more money in public schools, not taking more out.

If you think throwing money at something is how you solve problems, you are sadly mistaken. I don't where people came up with this moronic notion that more money equals smarter students, but it simply isn't that way.

And a private school can discriminate against anyone they want. That's why they are private. If it is a Catholic school, they can get away with not letting in non Catholics. They can get away with not admitting minorities.

That is their right as a private institution (though the catholic private college I went to was welcoming of all (accept for women)). Is the basis of your argument that institutions of education should accept anyone no matter what? Regardless, what a private school can do and what is actually done are pretty different things. It simply isn't in most schools interest to discriminate. A big selling point for many institutions is diversity. It certainly was where I went to school.

 

[sealybobo]

Just because that's they way it is doesn't mean it's right. I'm also simply making an argument. One can also argue that an educated populace is good for society as whole thus everyone should pay for it. And regardless of what you choose for your children, public or private, EVERYONE is still paying for education. Those paying for private are just doing it more directly, you could also argue they are taking a greater responsiblity for their children by actively seeking superior eductation.

If you think throwing money at something is how you solve problems, you are sadly mistaken. I don't where people came up with this moronic notion that more money equals smarter students, but it simply isn't that way.

That is their right as a private institution (though the catholic private college I went to was welcoming of all (accept for women)). Is the basis of your argument that institutions of education should accept anyone no matter what?

I don't know what those private schools are teaching their kids. It sure doesn't seem to be science. So I don't approve of people opting out of funding our public schools nor do I approve of my tax dollars going to private schools.

You know what? I make the same argument when people talk about the inevidable free markets/global economy/jobs going overseas. I say, "just because that's the way things are going now, doesn't mean it is right or has to be this way.

And I find it funny that you put it as "throwing money at...", rather than investing more in our public schools. Nice spin.

More money is definately better than under funding our schools, which is what we are doing now. Then we should get better teachers, better materials, computers. Ever hear it takes money to make money? Or how about CEO pay. Right wingers say you gotta pay $20 million to attract a good CEO, and we've been telling you the same thing. More money doesn't necessarily mean the dude is going to be "better".

Yes, that is their right as a private institution. It is also my right not to pay for whatever it is they are doing.

 

[sealybobo]

Just because that's they way it is doesn't mean it's right. I'm also simply making an argument. One can also argue that an educated populace is good for society as whole thus everyone should pay for it. And regardless of what you choose for your children, public or private, EVERYONE is still paying for education. Those paying for private are just doing it more directly, you could also argue they are taking a greater responsiblity for their children by actively seeking superior eductation.



If you think throwing money at something is how you solve problems, you are sadly mistaken. I don't where people came up with this moronic notion that more money equals smarter students, but it simply isn't that way.



That is their right as a private institution (though the catholic private college I went to was welcoming of all (accept for women)). Is the basis of your argument that institutions of education should accept anyone no matter what? Regardless, what a private school can do and what is actually done are pretty different things. It simply isn't in most schools interest to discriminate. A big selling point for many institutions is diversity. It certainly was where I went to school.

Doesn't Bel Aire have a public school system? Wouldn't they if given the opportunity opt out of the public school thing and just turn all their schools into private schools?

I'm guessing that the richest neighborhoods in our country pay more than the poorest neighborhoods and some of that money from the rich neighborhoods goes to poor schools. Otherwise, the poor inner city kids won't be getting nearly the same education. Those rich tax dollars pay for computers, books, etc. AND STILL THE INNER CITY SCHOOLS suck compared to even the middle class school I want to from 5th grade on.

How do I know? I went to an inner city school until 5th grade.

So no, rich areas of America can not concentrate their dollars on just their schools and communities. That's not how America works, nor should it be.

I see more and more that rich people are trying to end our current system and turn America into every man for himself. Either you are a have or a have not. And good luck becoming a have, because you are on your own.

 

[Bern80]

I don't know what those private schools are teaching their kids. It sure doesn't seem to be science. So I don't approve of people opting out of funding our public schools nor do I approve of my tax dollars going to private schools.

I'm afraid your impression of private schools is a bit off. What credible evidence do you that they are teaching something other than what any other public curriculum teaches?

And I find it funny that you put it as "throwing money at...", rather than investing more in our public schools. Nice spin.

More money is definately better than under funding our schools, which is what we are doing now. Then we should get better teachers, better materials, computers. Ever hear it takes money to make money? Or how about CEO pay. Right wingers say you gotta pay $20 million to attract a good CEO, and we've been telling you the same thing. More money doesn't necessarily mean the dude is going to be "better".

You're not listening. If I give you a 20, did they act of doing so make you smarter? What are you going to do when you see that more money isn't yielding higher graduation rates or better test scores? You will use the beloved liberal self fulfiling prophecy and claim it was because not enough was given.

Yes, that is their right as a private institution. It is also my right not to pay for whatever it is they are doing.

You don't pay for private institutions if you choose not to attend one so what exactley are you whinning about?

 

[sealybobo]

I'm afraid your impression of private schools is a bit off. What credible evidence do you that they are teaching something other than what any other public curriculum teaches?



You're not listening. If I give you a 20, did they act of doing so make you smarter? What are you going to do when you see that more money isn't yielding higher graduation rates or better test scores? You will use the beloved liberal self fulfiling prophecy and claim it was because not enough was given.



You don't pay for private institutions if you choose not to attend one so what exactley are you whinning about?

Do they teach evolution? Do they teach creationalism? Then I don't want my tax dollars paying for it.

I know what you mean about money isn't going to solve all our problems, but money will solve one problem we have, and that's a lack of funds.

 

[sealybobo]

You don't pay for private institutions if you choose not to attend one so what exactley are you whinning about?

I don't want people that go to private school to stop paying public school taxes.

I don't want rich communities opting out of the system we have now where some of their school taxes go towards inner cities. Even though they help poorer neighborhoods, the poor schools are far inferior of the rich kids schools. I want all the schools to be equal so every kid has an equal opportuntity.

 

[Bern80]

Do they teach evolution? Do they teach creationalism? Then I don't want my tax dollars paying for it.

And again if you aren't attending those schools you won't be so again what are you complaining about?

I know what you mean about money isn't going to solve all our problems, but money will solve one problem we have, and that's a lack of funds.

Then you are going to need to be more specific. If you claim schools are short funded you are going to have to show some measureably positive outcomes resulted from increased funding. Things like increased graduation rates and higher test scores and again i don't see how extra money is the most effective means to that end.

 

[Bern80]

I don't want people that go to private school to stop paying public school taxes.

Sealy this pretty stupid. You don't want to pay for one person's chioce, but feel they should have to pay for yours?

I don't want rich communities opting out of the system we have now where some of their school taxes go towards inner cities. Even though they help poorer neighborhoods, the poor schools are far inferior of the rich kids schools. I want all the schools to be equal so every kid has an equal opportuntity.

When is the left going to stop using the equal opportunity argument and start being honest? What happens when you're equal opportunity doesn't yield equal outcomes?

 

[sealybobo]

Sealy this pretty stupid. You don't want to pay for one person's chioce, but feel they should have to pay for yours?



When is the left going to stop using the equal opportunity argument and start being honest? What happens when you're equal opportunity doesn't yield equal outcomes?

To be honest, I don't have kids and wish I could opt out of paying for schools. LOL.

But We the People decided that everyone should pay for public schools, and not private.

And are you suggesting that inner city poor neighborhoods have equal opportunity? or either way

 

[Bern80]

To be honest, I don't have kids and wish I could opt out of paying for schools. LOL.

But We the People decided that everyone should pay for public schools, and not private.

No 'we' haven't. Like so many other things government simply shoved it down our throats. there is no right to an education in the constitution.

And are you suggesting that inner city poor neighborhoods have equal opportunity? or either way

I'm saying you're not being honest about what you want or are extremely naive. If you give a million to a school in white suburbia and million to a school the ghetto, that's equal opportunity. But that is what you are lieing to yourself about. You know deep down as well as I know that treating those two schools equally is going to yield outcomes. That is why I insist you quit using the term equal opportunity because what you are really after is equal outcomes and no ammount of money is going to gauruntee that.

 

[sealybobo]

No 'we' haven't. Like so many other things government simply shoved it down our throats. there is no right to an education in the constitution.



I'm saying you're not being honest about what you want or are extremely naive. If you give a million to a school in white suburbia and million to a school the ghetto, that's equal opportunity. But that is what you are lieing to yourself about. You know deep down as well as I know that treating those two schools equally is going to yield outcomes. That is why I insist you quit using the term equal opportunity because what you are really after is equal outcomes and no ammount of money is going to gauruntee that.

I'll give you this. Inner city schools like the ones in Detroit and Washington DC have problems that we didn't have in the suburbs. So you are right, money isn't the only thing lacking in the city schools.

Here is a great story about a woman who is fixing the DC schools.

Can Michelle Rhee Save D.C.'s Schools? | Newsweek Education | Newsweek.com

By firing bad teachers and paying good ones six-figure salaries, Michelle Rhee just might save D.C.'s schools.

Not long after Michelle Rhee took over as head of the Washington, D.C., public schools a year ago, she announced a plan to shut down almost two dozen schools in D.C.'s decrepit, shrinking, public-education system. At a meeting at one school, parents began screaming at Rhee and throwing things.

She is angry at a system of education that puts "the interests of adults" over the "interests of children," i.e., a system that values job protection for teachers over their effectiveness in the classroom. Rhee is trying to change that system. In a way that few realistic observers thought was possible, she has a chance to succeed, not just in Washington, but also around the country. She is entering into a struggle with the local teachers union that will test whether an urban school district can weed out its weak teachers—a profound threat to politically powerful teachers unions nationwide. "If she can pull it off, it's big," says Klein, who has battled, with mixed success, to tame the teachers union in New York City. Rhee's own story is a flicker, potentially a flame, of hope in the relentlessly depressing story of inner-city education.

Rhee was unable to stop the kids, or control them in the classroom for most of her first year. At Christmas, she went home scratching at huge welts on her arm. A doctor diagnosed stress. Her mother said, "You can apply for law school second semester." Her father, a strong believer in the work ethic and rooting for the underdog, said, "Suck it up and get back in there."

Rhee "sort of became obsessed," she says. "I was not going to let 8-year-olds run me out of town." Over the next two years, working with another teacher, she took a group of 70 kids who had been scoring "at almost rock bottom on standardized tests" to "absolutely at the top," she says.

You can read the rest.