14 ms·

> We need a change in priorities and not freak out about taxes for education. People don't freak out over paying taxes for education. Even if they don't have k

by maratd 11y ago

> We need a change in priorities and not freak out about taxes for education. People don't freak out over paying taxes for education. Even if they don't have kids in the system. They freak out over throwing money at a broken system and the solution isn't to throw more money at it. Attach a specific dollar amount to a student. Allow that student to go to whichever school they want. End of story. Stop forcing children to go to broken schools.

codyb 11y ago
It's really not that easy. Location and transportation logistics factor in greatly and are hard problems to solve for the disparate network of connections a system like that might create.
baldfat 11y ago
> Attach a specific dollar amount to a student. Allow that student to go to whichever school they want. End of story. Allow it to go where there is little to no public over sight, no public school board or checks and balances, under performing scores, teachers paid $20,000 less with no pension, and CEOs making millions. Charter Schools are a part of the problem with American education. Sure some Charter Schools are good so are some Public School but as a whole Charter Schools are not for America's children but for the non-profit and for profit companies that run them. PUBLIC SCHOOLS are the back bone of our educational system and democracy. Sending to school that take monetary advantage of our tax money with no over sight is wrong for everyone but the people who get the money. Who is running America's Charter School: https://schoolfinance101.wordpress.com/2015/07/22/whos-actually-running-americas-charter-schools/ https://schoolfinance101.wordpress.com/2015/07/22/whos-actua...
- msandford 11y ago
  Public schools also do plenty of dumb things. It's not as though charter schools have a lock on this. A lot of people want "vouchers" so that private schools are more affordable. And plenty of private schools have a good track record, while having similar per-pupil costs as public schools. If it costs $1000/student/month irrespective of if a child goes to a public school or a private school, why does the state really care which one the child attends? Why not let parents choose the school?
  - baldfat 11y ago
    Charter Schools = They take 100% of the money from the public school and the money follows the student. > why does the state really care which one the child attends? Well I as a tax payer cares. If those school fare even worst and the administration and CEO/President of the foundations makes millions at the expense of children there is a concern. Public Schools work and have worked for decades. We have a problem with inner city schools and a big part is unfair funding, but killing public schools and give it over to various schools with no public oversight just government over sight is scary. We vote on our School Boards and Directors. We can protest and get Administrators removed. Can't do that to these Charters School. Also privatizing schools will make being a teacher an even worst job.
    - msandford 11y ago
      You're not making very coherent arguments. What's wrong with a voucher system whereby the PARENTS of the children being educated are the ones who determine which child the school goes to? Doesn't that make it very easy for the parents to shut bad schools down very quickly? It seems like that solves all the problems you're worried about, while also providing more choices to parents and students. What's the downside?
      - baldfat 11y ago
        Voucher and Charter School are two different things. Charter Schools are taking over Public School System. Vochers are evil for many social reasons. I'll just focus on one. So Vouchers really will be the new segregation tool for the 21st Century. Your money will be used to send kids to religious schools you don't like teaching Islam, Christianity in all its forms, or who knows what and if they want to teach the children ignorance and hate and you as a tax payer just flipped the bill for this and can't stop it. I can't see a good voucher system that would answer my fears of miss used funds spent on poor education back by people groups that will not teach based on various world views that are not politically correct and just wrong. Our Brain Drain in America will go into Nuclear Meltdown. To quote the 2002 Supreme Court Voucher Dissent: Justice Breyer on Descent “... all religious institutions cannot be given equal opportunities to the government funding and trying to do so not only turns back the clock on the Constitution, but creates a powder keg in our society.” http://www.pewforum.org/2002/06/28/judgment-day-for-school-vouchers/ http://www.pewforum.org/2002/06/28/judgment-day-for-school-v... Back ground: I went to private school and graduated with a Theology Degree and worked as a Pastor for years. I absolutely know that many in the voucher movement see the Government footing the bill for their Christian Education. You have no idea how deep Crazy Christianity can get (Westborogh is just the tip of the ice berge). They will spew their version of crazy that they got with no academic or logically training to children with your tax dollars paying for it.
- briandear 11y ago
  Then why don't the Obama kids go to public school? Citing security would be silly. A school is a school. Even the President doesn't believe in public schools. If he does, he sure isn't eating his dog food.
  - logfromblammo 11y ago
    While this has great rhetorical impact, it is still an appeal to authority. To me, the Obamas are just like any other rich(er) family. The PotUS has no special expertise in this domain. They can afford to send their kids to private school, they believe that school to be superior to the public schools their kids would otherwise attend, so they pay the private tuition. As a parent, I agree with this. I, however, do not have a $400k income with a $169k expense account and a sweet pension plan, like he does. In short, his kids don't attend public school because he can afford for them to go somewhere better. I am not willing to penalize any child for the sake of their parents' political views (or offices), nor am I willing to restrict people from spending their own money just because they might buy something I don't like.
    - lliamander 11y ago
      it is true that the president may have no special expertise in assessing whether private schools are better than government schools, but it strikes me that any support he expresses for public schools is going to ring hollow if he isn't personally invested in the success of government schools. I could be mistaken, but as far as I am aware no politician (from either side of the aisle) sends their kids to a government school. At least, no politician at the national level (president, congress, etc.). I am not a fan of having a centralized governmental school system (I think the indoctrination risk is greater, because then there aren't competing institutions around to teach anything different) but it strikes me that any voter who does believe in government schools should demand that their representatives send their own kids to governmental schools as a sign of good faith.
      - vellum 11y ago
        > no politician (from either side of the aisle) sends their kids to a government school. At least, no politician at the national level (president, congress, etc.). About half of Congress sends their kids to public school. http://www.publicschoolreview.com/blog/how-many-politicians-send-their-kids-to-public-schools http://www.publicschoolreview.com/blog/how-many-politicians-...
jkestner 11y ago
I agree that lots of money is wasted in the public school system, but we don't need University of Phoenix brought to elementary schools.
- maratd 11y ago
  > we don't need University of Phoenix brought to elementary schools. I realize that from your perspective, the world if full of imbeciles ... but just for a second, consider that {insert for-profit college name} is providing a service that people want and that's why people are choosing it. Those people don't care how the money they are paying is divvied up afterward. Whether it goes into the pocket of some administrator or a sports program at a non-profit institution, or into the pocket of some CEO or shareholder at a for-profit one. They are getting something they want and that's all they care about. If we had an education system that as a whole, gave people what they wanted, we would all be better off.
  - justizin 11y ago
    > If we had an education system that as a whole, gave people what they wanted, we would all be better off. Because a teacher's job is customer service and the customer is always right? ;)
    - maratd 11y ago
      > Because a teacher's job is customer service and the customer is always right? ;) Yes? Good customer service is making sure the customer walks away happy in the long-term. Sometimes you do that by giving homework and tests. They might be miserable in the moment, but they'll be happy in the long-term. Viewing students as customers may not be ideal, but it's certainly better than seeing them as a burden.
  - shkkmo 11y ago
    > but just for a second, consider that {insert for-profit college name} is providing a service that people want and that's why people are choosing it. Are you aware of how extremely predatory many of these for-profit colleges have been? Their students aren't getting something they want. I don't disagree with vouchers in general, but you can't just ignore the risks when using public funds to have private institution provide education.
logfromblammo 11y ago
No one I know has ever freaked out about paying taxes for education. They are, however, skeptical that the local school system which receives those taxes is wisely using those funds to provide education. They have good reason. Much of the money poured into public schooling in the U.S. goes to administration and overhead rather than the direct costs of teaching and student evaluation. Many parents in this country are desperate to get their children the best education they can, within a certainly dysfunctional, and possibly also corrupt, system. Part of the problem is that the funding is largely dissociated from effectiveness. The people spending the money have no vested interest in seeing that it is spent appropriately, for the benefit of the children--and the community they will be a part of when they eventually cease to be students. I am not proposing any fixes. I am simply agreeing with my parent post. Every parent knows that raising local taxes to throw more money at their local schools will not solve anything. Richer neighborhoods will have to subsidize the schools in poorer neighborhoods in order to provide equal access to educational resources to all children. If you want your kids to have extra opportunities, you can voluntarily give your own money to the PTA for the school they attend. Clearly, having to pay to remove the dents in the school-owned band instruments is a problem of a completely different order of magnitude from students in the classroom not having textbooks, or paper and pencils. Equally clearly, it is a disservice for Louisiana students to get pseudoreligious instruction in science class, as Massachusetts students learn without political interference. I'm not a socialist, but it is blindingly obvious to me that if the state is to provide public education in any form, it needs to provide equal resources to everyone. It cannot select winners and losers by giving more money to schools where the children of richer people attend, and less money to schools where the children of poorer people attend. As PP stated, attaching an equal dollar amount to each student, for the sole purpose of paying educational expenses, is one way to improve upon the existing system. It is not necessarily the best way, but better is a good first step on the voyage to good.
- vellum 11y ago
  >Every parent knows that raising local taxes to throw more money at their local schools will not solve anything. Richer neighborhoods will have to subsidize the schools in poorer neighborhoods in order to provide equal access to educational resources to all children. It depends on where you live. In Silicon Valley, they have local measures to raise parcel taxes to fund the schools. All money stays in the district and none of it goes to administration.
6stringmerc 11y ago
First, no, they do freak out for paying taxes for education, and it's pretty obvious that the hostility increases with age and as the elderly rely on social welfare programs. They get out and vote. Traditionally they vote down any education funding, as a cohort. In my experience the people who claim the public schools are "broken" the loudest are the least qualified to make such an assessment. Also, public schools reflect the public, as in, you know, society at large. Saying that public schools are broken is essentially saying our basic local systems are broken, and that opens a whole new can of worms regarding inequality, poverty, and social priorities. The significant problem with your "End of story" type solution is that there are schools which are tantamount to educational fraud based on their religious priorities, and there's no way public monies should enable that type of selectivity. Pay into the public system. If you can afford to keep your child ignorant through religious pursuits, or can afford the opportunity for a selective population experience by way of a private school, that's totally fine, always has been and always will be. Stop forcing schools to listen to broken people.
- Hydraulix989 11y ago
  "Saying that public schools are broken is essentially saying our basic local systems are broken, and that opens a whole new can of worms regarding inequality, poverty, and social priorities." Not necessarily.
  - 6stringmerc 11y ago
    Initiatives like No Child Left Behind would indicate that my statement is closer to reality than you might choose to believe.
intopieces 11y ago
>Allow that student to go to whichever school they want. End of story. I was given this option in the third grade. I got a letter from the State Board of Education saying that I had performed exceedingly well on their standardized test and that I was invited to change schools and go to a special program in another town for smart kids. My parents told me I should do it. I regret it to this day. I was not equipped to understand the consequences of this choice, was not aware what I was getting into and it basically ruined my education. Our class was separate from other students at this school. We started at a different time and ended earlier. In general, the rest of the school knew us as "those smart kids" and it took a major toll on my work ethic throughout high school. No. Please do not give students the choice of which school they go to. They need to learn to get along with students different from them, not self-segregate into classes based on wealth, intelligence, etc.
- maratd 11y ago
  We all make decisions we regret. That doesn't mean all decisions lead to regret. Nor does it mean that we should take away the ability to make decisions. Fundamentally, we already have school choice. If you have enough money, you can choose your school district by purchasing a house wherever it is that you want to send your children. That's absolutely revolting. We are giving choice to those who can afford it and taking it away from those can't. Is that what a public school system should do?
  - ChicagoBoy11 11y ago
    >We are giving choice to those who can afford it and taking it away from those can't. Amen. I'm astounded by the number of people who completely fail to see this very basic point.

by maratd 11y ago

codyb 11y ago

It's really not that easy. Location and transportation logistics factor in greatly and are hard problems to solve for the disparate network of connections a system like that might create.

baldfat 11y ago

> Attach a specific dollar amount to a student. Allow that student to go to whichever school they want. End of story. Allow it to go where there is little to no public over sight, no public school board or checks and balances, under performing scores, teachers paid $20,000 less with no pension, and CEOs making millions. Charter Schools are a part of the problem with American education. Sure some Charter Schools are good so are some Public School but as a whole Charter Schools are not for America's children but for the non-profit and for profit companies that run them. PUBLIC SCHOOLS are the back bone of our educational system and democracy. Sending to school that take monetary advantage of our tax money with no over sight is wrong for everyone but the people who get the money. Who is running America's Charter School: https://schoolfinance101.wordpress.com/2015/07/22/whos-actually-running-americas-charter-schools/ https://schoolfinance101.wordpress.com/2015/07/22/whos-actua...

msandford 11y ago
Public schools also do plenty of dumb things. It's not as though charter schools have a lock on this. A lot of people want "vouchers" so that private schools are more affordable. And plenty of private schools have a good track record, while having similar per-pupil costs as public schools. If it costs $1000/student/month irrespective of if a child goes to a public school or a private school, why does the state really care which one the child attends? Why not let parents choose the school?
- baldfat 11y ago
  Charter Schools = They take 100% of the money from the public school and the money follows the student. > why does the state really care which one the child attends? Well I as a tax payer cares. If those school fare even worst and the administration and CEO/President of the foundations makes millions at the expense of children there is a concern. Public Schools work and have worked for decades. We have a problem with inner city schools and a big part is unfair funding, but killing public schools and give it over to various schools with no public oversight just government over sight is scary. We vote on our School Boards and Directors. We can protest and get Administrators removed. Can't do that to these Charters School. Also privatizing schools will make being a teacher an even worst job.
  - msandford 11y ago
    You're not making very coherent arguments. What's wrong with a voucher system whereby the PARENTS of the children being educated are the ones who determine which child the school goes to? Doesn't that make it very easy for the parents to shut bad schools down very quickly? It seems like that solves all the problems you're worried about, while also providing more choices to parents and students. What's the downside?
    - baldfat 11y ago
      Voucher and Charter School are two different things. Charter Schools are taking over Public School System. Vochers are evil for many social reasons. I'll just focus on one. So Vouchers really will be the new segregation tool for the 21st Century. Your money will be used to send kids to religious schools you don't like teaching Islam, Christianity in all its forms, or who knows what and if they want to teach the children ignorance and hate and you as a tax payer just flipped the bill for this and can't stop it. I can't see a good voucher system that would answer my fears of miss used funds spent on poor education back by people groups that will not teach based on various world views that are not politically correct and just wrong. Our Brain Drain in America will go into Nuclear Meltdown. To quote the 2002 Supreme Court Voucher Dissent: Justice Breyer on Descent “... all religious institutions cannot be given equal opportunities to the government funding and trying to do so not only turns back the clock on the Constitution, but creates a powder keg in our society.” http://www.pewforum.org/2002/06/28/judgment-day-for-school-vouchers/ http://www.pewforum.org/2002/06/28/judgment-day-for-school-v... Back ground: I went to private school and graduated with a Theology Degree and worked as a Pastor for years. I absolutely know that many in the voucher movement see the Government footing the bill for their Christian Education. You have no idea how deep Crazy Christianity can get (Westborogh is just the tip of the ice berge). They will spew their version of crazy that they got with no academic or logically training to children with your tax dollars paying for it.
briandear 11y ago
Then why don't the Obama kids go to public school? Citing security would be silly. A school is a school. Even the President doesn't believe in public schools. If he does, he sure isn't eating his dog food.
- logfromblammo 11y ago
  While this has great rhetorical impact, it is still an appeal to authority. To me, the Obamas are just like any other rich(er) family. The PotUS has no special expertise in this domain. They can afford to send their kids to private school, they believe that school to be superior to the public schools their kids would otherwise attend, so they pay the private tuition. As a parent, I agree with this. I, however, do not have a $400k income with a $169k expense account and a sweet pension plan, like he does. In short, his kids don't attend public school because he can afford for them to go somewhere better. I am not willing to penalize any child for the sake of their parents' political views (or offices), nor am I willing to restrict people from spending their own money just because they might buy something I don't like.
  - lliamander 11y ago
    it is true that the president may have no special expertise in assessing whether private schools are better than government schools, but it strikes me that any support he expresses for public schools is going to ring hollow if he isn't personally invested in the success of government schools. I could be mistaken, but as far as I am aware no politician (from either side of the aisle) sends their kids to a government school. At least, no politician at the national level (president, congress, etc.). I am not a fan of having a centralized governmental school system (I think the indoctrination risk is greater, because then there aren't competing institutions around to teach anything different) but it strikes me that any voter who does believe in government schools should demand that their representatives send their own kids to governmental schools as a sign of good faith.
    - vellum 11y ago
      > no politician (from either side of the aisle) sends their kids to a government school. At least, no politician at the national level (president, congress, etc.). About half of Congress sends their kids to public school. http://www.publicschoolreview.com/blog/how-many-politicians-send-their-kids-to-public-schools http://www.publicschoolreview.com/blog/how-many-politicians-...

jkestner 11y ago

I agree that lots of money is wasted in the public school system, but we don't need University of Phoenix brought to elementary schools.

maratd 11y ago
> we don't need University of Phoenix brought to elementary schools. I realize that from your perspective, the world if full of imbeciles ... but just for a second, consider that {insert for-profit college name} is providing a service that people want and that's why people are choosing it. Those people don't care how the money they are paying is divvied up afterward. Whether it goes into the pocket of some administrator or a sports program at a non-profit institution, or into the pocket of some CEO or shareholder at a for-profit one. They are getting something they want and that's all they care about. If we had an education system that as a whole, gave people what they wanted, we would all be better off.
- justizin 11y ago
  > If we had an education system that as a whole, gave people what they wanted, we would all be better off. Because a teacher's job is customer service and the customer is always right? ;)
  - maratd 11y ago
    > Because a teacher's job is customer service and the customer is always right? ;) Yes? Good customer service is making sure the customer walks away happy in the long-term. Sometimes you do that by giving homework and tests. They might be miserable in the moment, but they'll be happy in the long-term. Viewing students as customers may not be ideal, but it's certainly better than seeing them as a burden.
- shkkmo 11y ago
  > but just for a second, consider that {insert for-profit college name} is providing a service that people want and that's why people are choosing it. Are you aware of how extremely predatory many of these for-profit colleges have been? Their students aren't getting something they want. I don't disagree with vouchers in general, but you can't just ignore the risks when using public funds to have private institution provide education.

logfromblammo 11y ago

No one I know has ever freaked out about paying taxes for education. They are, however, skeptical that the local school system which receives those taxes is wisely using those funds to provide education. They have good reason. Much of the money poured into public schooling in the U.S. goes to administration and overhead rather than the direct costs of teaching and student evaluation. Many parents in this country are desperate to get their children the best education they can, within a certainly dysfunctional, and possibly also corrupt, system. Part of the problem is that the funding is largely dissociated from effectiveness. The people spending the money have no vested interest in seeing that it is spent appropriately, for the benefit of the children--and the community they will be a part of when they eventually cease to be students. I am not proposing any fixes. I am simply agreeing with my parent post. Every parent knows that raising local taxes to throw more money at their local schools will not solve anything. Richer neighborhoods will have to subsidize the schools in poorer neighborhoods in order to provide equal access to educational resources to all children. If you want your kids to have extra opportunities, you can voluntarily give your own money to the PTA for the school they attend. Clearly, having to pay to remove the dents in the school-owned band instruments is a problem of a completely different order of magnitude from students in the classroom not having textbooks, or paper and pencils. Equally clearly, it is a disservice for Louisiana students to get pseudoreligious instruction in science class, as Massachusetts students learn without political interference. I'm not a socialist, but it is blindingly obvious to me that if the state is to provide public education in any form, it needs to provide equal resources to everyone. It cannot select winners and losers by giving more money to schools where the children of richer people attend, and less money to schools where the children of poorer people attend. As PP stated, attaching an equal dollar amount to each student, for the sole purpose of paying educational expenses, is one way to improve upon the existing system. It is not necessarily the best way, but better is a good first step on the voyage to good.

vellum 11y ago
>Every parent knows that raising local taxes to throw more money at their local schools will not solve anything. Richer neighborhoods will have to subsidize the schools in poorer neighborhoods in order to provide equal access to educational resources to all children. It depends on where you live. In Silicon Valley, they have local measures to raise parcel taxes to fund the schools. All money stays in the district and none of it goes to administration.

6stringmerc 11y ago

First, no, they do freak out for paying taxes for education, and it's pretty obvious that the hostility increases with age and as the elderly rely on social welfare programs. They get out and vote. Traditionally they vote down any education funding, as a cohort. In my experience the people who claim the public schools are "broken" the loudest are the least qualified to make such an assessment. Also, public schools reflect the public, as in, you know, society at large. Saying that public schools are broken is essentially saying our basic local systems are broken, and that opens a whole new can of worms regarding inequality, poverty, and social priorities. The significant problem with your "End of story" type solution is that there are schools which are tantamount to educational fraud based on their religious priorities, and there's no way public monies should enable that type of selectivity. Pay into the public system. If you can afford to keep your child ignorant through religious pursuits, or can afford the opportunity for a selective population experience by way of a private school, that's totally fine, always has been and always will be. Stop forcing schools to listen to broken people.

Hydraulix989 11y ago
"Saying that public schools are broken is essentially saying our basic local systems are broken, and that opens a whole new can of worms regarding inequality, poverty, and social priorities." Not necessarily.
- 6stringmerc 11y ago
  Initiatives like No Child Left Behind would indicate that my statement is closer to reality than you might choose to believe.

intopieces 11y ago

>Allow that student to go to whichever school they want. End of story. I was given this option in the third grade. I got a letter from the State Board of Education saying that I had performed exceedingly well on their standardized test and that I was invited to change schools and go to a special program in another town for smart kids. My parents told me I should do it. I regret it to this day. I was not equipped to understand the consequences of this choice, was not aware what I was getting into and it basically ruined my education. Our class was separate from other students at this school. We started at a different time and ended earlier. In general, the rest of the school knew us as "those smart kids" and it took a major toll on my work ethic throughout high school. No. Please do not give students the choice of which school they go to. They need to learn to get along with students different from them, not self-segregate into classes based on wealth, intelligence, etc.

maratd 11y ago
We all make decisions we regret. That doesn't mean all decisions lead to regret. Nor does it mean that we should take away the ability to make decisions. Fundamentally, we already have school choice. If you have enough money, you can choose your school district by purchasing a house wherever it is that you want to send your children. That's absolutely revolting. We are giving choice to those who can afford it and taking it away from those can't. Is that what a public school system should do?
- ChicagoBoy11 11y ago
  >We are giving choice to those who can afford it and taking it away from those can't. Amen. I'm astounded by the number of people who completely fail to see this very basic point.