Get Schooled

By TTB-POTS

June 20, 2005 12:48 PM | Link to this

I’m sure this won’t be a popular comment, so I’m prepared to take my hits…please insult only my idea, and not my character, occupation, or parenting skills though - thanks.

I’ve never quite understand the logic or fairness behind property taxes funding schools…I’m sure it’s some remnant of the time before income taxes and sales taxes. Although theoretically we, as a society, all benefit from having a well-educated population, I’m not sure it’s fair that people who have no children in a community’s schools have to pay simply because they own property, when someone with children who rents isn’t technically paying (I know it’s part of rent, but I think you feel a greater sense of ownership when you write that property tax check - that’s just me).

You could make the argument that good schools increase property values so even someone who doesn’t have a child in school benefits when the schools are good - I would agree to that. However…

I think a small percentage (1%) of sales tax earmarked for the schools is good - it lessens the load paid by property taxes and is distributed equitably. Maybe there could be a “sinner’s” tax - an increased tax on cigarettes and alcohol specifically going to the schools. I also think that there should be an increase in whatever fees builders pay to build new homes in a community. These fees should be specifically earmarked for schools. Rental property should be charged more. And schools should start assessing fees - if a child moves during the course of a year, the parents should pay a small administrative fee to cover the costs of paperwork. I also think parents should have to put a deposit on textbooks - do you know how much money is lost in textbooks?

I had a friend who moved here from Canada where they pay a school tax. When she registered her kids, she asked about the school tax and was told, “Here school is free.” That was before all the requests and fundraisers started coming home. I sometimes wonder if we all had to write a check specifically for school, if more of us would take more ownership, feel more responsible, make sure our kids were getting the absolute most out of it possible. For those for whom the fees would be too much, perhaps they could barter time or talent instead. Just a thought.

I’m not a fan of taxes (who is??), and I don’t see us switching over to non-government funded schools anytime in the near future (sorry, Mr. Liberty). So what we have left to work with is a fee system that is a little unfair (and not getting the job done well if we can’t make the budget). The best we can do is try to make it a little more equitable; maybe make it so that those who get the most out of the system put the most in.

As usual I have no answer - just throwing some thoughts out there…

By Sly

June 20, 2005 12:53 PM | Link to this

This tax increase could easily be avoided by stamping out the obscene waste that’s in the sytem now.

By TTB-POTS

June 20, 2005 01:05 PM | Link to this

Good point, Sly…I’m sure there could be some tightening of spending done…I can only talk about my school and the schools my children went to - they all seemed to be run pretty frugally…I know that may not always be the case so we throw in periodic outside audits (of course that will cost, too, but perhaps weighed against what we’ll be saving, it’ll be worth it).

When I reread the original blog, I noticed…”Two new programs will open to house disruptive students” What? That right there is a huge problem! From what I understand, since attendance is now a part of AYP, and suspended students count against attendance, counties are having to provide alternative ed for the suspended students (or either run the risk of not making AYP or not suspended students who really should be).

So, I propose either a fee to attend AltEd or a deposit, to be returned at the end of the year if your child doesn’t need that particular special service. That thought should really make me unpopular.

By T. R.

June 20, 2005 01:38 PM | Link to this

Pots:

I agree that property taxes are an unfair way to pay for schools, but my reasons are different. I disagree with it because all students in government-funded public schools should all have equal access to an equal education.

By funding schools with property taxes, you are guaranteeing that the children who need the most support from their schools will actually receive the least resources.

I believe that schools should be funded by state income taxes, so that homeowners and renters alike share the burden of funding our schools, as well as people who work in GA but live elsewhere.

And why pay for schools when you have no children in them? Because it’s the only way funding such a huge program will work - by spreading the cost around amoung us all. Besides, you probably went to school, and you may have children there some day. I homeschool my kids, but supported the last bond issue here in Forsyth because it’s good for the community to have good schools (and my property values)

By milo

June 20, 2005 01:54 PM | Link to this

TTB, I am sur no one will like what I have to say. You are correct is saying that those of us who do not have children should not pay school taxes. But I will go one futher. If you are an illegal and want to send you child to school, You need to pay for it. If you are a renter and want to send you child to school, You need to pay for it. I chose not to have children in the world we live in, So those that do make this choice need to pay for it. I cant help it if you cant afford it, You should have thought of that before giving birth. We as Americans are getting tired of supporting the rest of the world (I know I am) when they come illegaly and want to use our services, Even for the dead beat Mom’s and Dad’s who want every thing for free. The school system IS NOT your free babysitter, The trachers are not here to raise your children. They are here to teach. If the student acts up in class or does not learn and has to go to one of the ALT school programs, You need to pay for it.(It is not the teachers fault your kids are disruptive, It is the parents for not making there children mind and respect others). We “The TAX payer” have to foot the bill. And I for one am VERY TIRED of doing so.

By abc

June 20, 2005 02:03 PM | Link to this

I believe that public education benefits all citizens no matter if they have children or not, and for that reason should be funded through taxation of all.

By kdw

June 20, 2005 02:04 PM | Link to this

Using property taxes also ensures, or attempts to ensure, that students attend school in their county of residence…no ‘outsiders’. I live in Fayetteville but just over the county line in Clayton County. Because my property taxes go to Clayton County, that is where my son must attend school. This leaves me, a parent who pays a hefty property tax bill, to now search for a private school for my son’s high school years. If other non-property-based taxes were used to support the schools, this probably could not be enforced.
Now to address the original issue, specifically the two new programs to house disruptive students… just more evidence of the backfire of and backlash from NCLB. I have not seen or heard of one good thing to come from that program.

By Dan

June 20, 2005 03:03 PM | Link to this

What could be bad about a program to house disruptive students, the only better alternative is to throw their butts out and have them start cleaning up our streets

TTB makes a number of good points. I would like to take that writing a tax check further and vote for haveing to write a check for income tax and SS. People don’t even realize what they pay (or don’t pay) in taxes. And TTB I have a few good friends who teach and I understand the frugality at on the front lines but someone needs to hold the administrators accountable because school funding has been going up at incredible rates, yet the teachers I know continue to buy many of their own supplies. It is maddening

By TTB-POTS

June 20, 2005 04:11 PM | Link to this

Dan, I don’t think it’s bad to have a place for the disruptive ones (Lord knows I don’t need them in my class or want them in my children’s classes) - it just bothers me that it’s even necessary. I thought if the parents had to pay for the special service their little darlings required then maybe they would have an incentive to discipline them better.

As far as school funding goes, one area that there is waste is in the building of new schools - not that we don’t need them, but that some counties don’t keep down costs by using the same plans or that new schools are built when it may be cheaper to renovate older schools. Nobody wants their kids in trailers but we don’t want to spend excessively for new classrooms to be built.

Textbooks are another huge area of expense - I don’t want to see us using outdated books, obviously, but some subjects don’t need replacing as often as others - Reading and Language Arts can get by longer with the same texts than science or social studies, I would think. And, the amount we lose in lost textbooks is ridiculous.

Unfortunately in areas such as heating, cooling, and electricity, increasing energy costs are something everyone must deal with.

kdw - I agree, out of district students and illegal immigration are another problem that money spent solving would be money saved, too.

abc and T.R. - my point wasn’t exactly that people without children shouldn’t pay, it was that people with children in the schools should pay more, and that the tax base should be more equitably distributed among a variety of sources. We get Federal money (from our income taxes), state money (state income taxes), local money (property and - in some counties - sales taxes). My point was to increase some of those funds from sources that are currently not tapped (renters) or currently a problem (new construction, while good for bringing jobs, is bad for already over-crowded schools). I believe Cobb County gives a property tax break to senior citizens - I think that’s a fair thing to do.

abc - From what I read on this blog, a lot of people either don’t feel that they are being benefitted by public education, or feel that they’re not getting their money’s worth. Based on some of your other posts, your position actually surprises me.

My “writing the check” theory is based on my own experiences - when I pay for something I am more likely to use it - prime example is the gym - I go to the gym when I’m paying for it…I think a lot of people are like that.

By kdw

June 20, 2005 04:21 PM | Link to this

I guess I should have elaborated…The bad thing about housing disruptive students is that that money could be used for the students who are in school to actually learn. The basic attendance requirements NCLB seems to make it necessary for programs like this instead of the better alternative, which you pointed out, of kicking them out of school altogether. I mean really, are they going to be any more cooperative just because they are in an alternative school?

By TTB-POTS

June 20, 2005 04:42 PM | Link to this

kdw - good point…then you have the addtional issue that a lot of “trouble students” get in trouble because their skills are so low that thy’re not learning anyway; schools are just babysitters for them…suspending them without the accountability of an alternative school just gives them a vacation and points them on the street to cause mayhem - and around and around we go.

And again, no easy answer. I, too, wish the money were being spent on my children who do behave and want to learn rather than those that don’t.

By Karen Armsby

June 21, 2005 10:37 AM | Link to this

TTB-POTS, Renters pay property taxes indirectly through their rent payments. The property owner pays property taxes and this is cost is passed onto the renters, factored into their individual monthly payment.

By The Angry American

June 21, 2005 11:33 AM | Link to this

Why do people always look to raising taxes when there is a shortfall? We need to put pressure on our elected officials to remove the fat from the budget. If the taxes were enough last year they should be enough this year factoring in new housing and increased property values. We also do not need to spend extra money on the trouble makers. If they require special handling the expense should be bourne by their parents since they are the reason their kids cannot behave in the first place. Changing the source of the taxes is not the answer. We all pay in the end.

By pel

June 21, 2005 12:12 PM | Link to this

Renters do pay taxes through their rent payment!!!

Most homeowners I know do not write a check directly to pay property tax, it is part of monthly escrow.

I grew up going to a private school. Parents wrote a check every month for tuition. There were still parents who didn’t care what their kids learned, just as long as the kid got to play ball.

About the comment of people with children in the system should pay more – what if I had a good job when my child was born but through no fault of my own I now make a lot less money, perhaps struggling to make a rent payment. What happens if I can’t afford the extra tax to send my child to school?

Alternative schools for disruptive students can be a great thing. Many of these kids are disruptive because of learning or emotional problems. Yes, some just need a strong hand from adults but I don’t think that is the majority.

By math teacher

June 21, 2005 12:20 PM | Link to this

I am not sure I see the “fat” or “waste” that is frequently mentioned in many of these messages. I worked in business for 22 years and saw much more waste there. I’ve also taken a 60% pay cut to work at a meaningful job, teaching someone else’s children. The continuation of our American ideals requires that we educate or next generations and we as citizens must take that responsibility seriously. That is why we pay taxes and I don’t object to paying for those services, even though my children have graduated and are on their own. This is a responsibility I take seriously.

Sometimes we forget about the sacrifices it takes to be an American. We are reminded frequently of the sacrifices of our men and women in the service and the sacrifices made by their families. Our monetary sacrifices to preserve our American ideals are minor in comparison.

By TTB-POTS

June 21, 2005 12:27 PM | Link to this

Karen - I know that renters pay a portion of property taxes in the rent - reread my first post; I stated that. My point is that renters often don’t feel the same sense of ownership in their local schools, and that by actually seeing their money go there, they might.

I’m generalizing some, however, I don’t want you think I’m bashing renters. I WAS a renter for the first 8 years of my child’s education. I made it a point to be there at school and help out. Lots of my neighbors didn’t. What I see at my school is people moving from apartment to apartment, leaving with books and other supplies missing, and children whose education has gaps becauae of all the moving. I have kids for a couple months that leave, and then they come back for the last couple weeks of the school year. How is NCLB going to solve the transiency problem? Is it any wonder that the general trend shows schools in neighborhoods with higher rates of ownership do better?

I don’t know how property taxes on rental properties is assessed; I’m thinking, though, because of the extra drain that rental properties cause on local schools that they should be assessed more. Related issue - the large number of families living in units not designed for that many - see yesterday’s AJC.

Angry - I don’t think factoring in new housing and increased property values works when it doesn’t equal increased costs in utilities, cost of living raises (which Fulton teachers are NOT getting) and other expenses. New housing should pay development fees which are then passed on to the buyer.

I said I’m all for cutting fat - I gave two places that I feel budgets could be trimmed. Suggest some more!

Spending extra money on the troublemakers…well, I said I thought parents should pay. It’s a sticky situation because of NCLB.

We do all pay in the end - I was just throwing out some thoughts on how we could make it fairer - those that benefit more, pay more.

Things cost. Someone pays. Things cost more. Someone is asked to pay more. And round and round we go…

By Dan

June 21, 2005 12:29 PM | Link to this

math teacher, As a math teacher you should know better.
If a business doubled it’s expenses and produced the same or less over a 10 year period as the public school systetm has, well it wouldn’t even last 10 years. It would have been bankrupt after 2-3

By TTB-POTS

June 21, 2005 12:43 PM | Link to this

Wow - I knew my comments would get people riled up…

For the record: I was a renter; now I own my home. I bought in the district I was renting in, because I cared about the schools. I am a teacher, but I was a parent of a student for twice as long as I’ve been teaching. I pay my property taxes and my sales taxes and I don’t have a problem with it because I am happy with the services I get. My daughter is now graduated and I’m still happy with the service I get.

The blog asked if the tax hike was reasonable. I suggested some other places to get revenue without raising property taxes (which BTW are pretty low compared with states like New Hampshire, which has no state income taxes). Fact is - things cost money.

I said that we all benefit from increased property values when the schools were good. And technically, people with kids in school do pay more - every fee and fundraiser that we participate in…

By MrLiberty

June 21, 2005 03:43 PM | Link to this

Wow, seems like quite a few people object to the way schools are paid for…big surprise.

Please explain how paying taxes as a homeowner gives you any more of a sense of “ownership” than a renter. Neither of you have any choice about paying the taxes or not, and neither of you really have any say in how the school spends your money. For a real sense of ownership, why don’t you both just try paying directly for your kid’s education rather than sticking it to every other taxpayer in the district/state?

If you actually paid the full cost of educating your child you would really finally take ownership of that choice. If the school didn’t deliver on service promises, you could take your money and leave. Try that with the government schools.

And as for “pel”. Where do you get off thinking that it is anyone’s responsibility but yours to pay for your child’s education? This isn’t the Soviet Union. I can see your confusion since government schools are the classic example of pure socialism. You chose to have these kids, not your single neighbor down the street. If you lose your job or similar circumstances, then you should have to make ends meet as anyone else would do for food, clothing, housing, etc. Why should education be any different?

The comments about property taxes are absolutely correct. Why should a household of 0 kids, 1 kid, or 2 kids with a house value of $300,000 pay three times the amount for school expenses than a family of 6 kids living in a $100,000 house?

How can we possibly expect any child to understand the concepts of personal responsibility when the very foundation of their educational system is based on a lack of personal responsibility, theft, and socialism.

Yes, there are many who find themselves in dire circumstances. Americans are the most generous people on the planet, and charity is an ethic we all respect. But being forced to pay for the choices of others and their lack of personal responsibility undermines the moral lesson of charity, destroys the work ethic of those forced to pay, and only reinforces the belief that crime ceases to be crime when committed by the government.

A private business must deliver or fail. Its high time we end government involvement in education. We shouldn’t be talking about higher taxes, we should be talking about private schools.

By Sylvia

June 22, 2005 09:02 AM | Link to this

Mr. Liberty- You are taking Libertarianism way too far! Having children (if married and working) is hardly an example of a lack of personal responsibility! If we followed your example our species would be extinct within decades. We ALL pay for services that we don’t use, but educating our children is essential to our future. Maybe the best solution is to get rid of the income tax and fund everything - Federal and State through a sales tax. Then at least you would have some choice as to how a huge chunk of your earnings are spent instead of being confiscated by the government before you even get your paycheck.

By pel

June 22, 2005 09:59 AM | Link to this

MrLiberty, So, it sounds like you believe if someone loses their job after having children, then those children should not get an education. Or if, God forbid, one or both of the parents die. So, we just send these kids out to work in the fields and manufacturing plants? Hey, it’s their parent’s fault right? They didn’t “plan” well enough.

An uneducated public is a dangerous situation.

By Karen Armsby

June 22, 2005 10:05 AM | Link to this

Mr. Liberty has taken the liberty to accuse us of a lack of social responsibility, poor moral character, criminal behavior, theft, and stealing from him (a victim, boo-hoo), to pay for public education.

Mr. Liberty, Your mud-slinging insults and accusations are uninformed and not productive. To work for change you must first inform yourself, then start acting in a positve manner. In other words, GROW UP!

Our country is run by the rule of law. Interested and informed citizens elect officials who make and enforce our rules, policies and laws. Our elected leaders rely on us, the consituents, to communicate with them in an intelligent manner to guide them in their decision making. If you disagree with their decisions, then you can work to gather your own group of like minded people to either influence the officals to vote your way, or you work to elect your own candidate.

Tax laws and policies that define millage rates and property tax assessments are all lawfully enacted and enforced by our elected officials. The public is welcome to participate in processes leading up to assessments. This taxing is not theft, stealing, nor criminal behavior under the law.

Perhaps you have failed to get your message across because: a. You are RUDE and ABUSIVE in your speech b. You have no constituency that will work with you for lawful changes. c. You are uninformed about how government works.

If you want private schools, then start your own, because nothing is stopping you, except your own angry victimized psyche.

By Nick

June 22, 2005 02:49 PM | Link to this

My idea for paying for schools came to me after someone told me that all they should have to pay their teahers is what they paid their babysitters, 6 bucks an hour.

Ok, I agree that good schools benefit everyone, and everyone pays taxes that help fund public schools. NOW, lets give those parents of public school students a tax break.. YES a tax break in the amount equal to the portion of taxes that go towards public schools. Let them instead pay 6 bucks an hour to send their kids to school. 6 bucks multiplied by 30 homeroom students equals to 180 bucks an hour going to a teacher, roughly 5,600 bucks a week, 230k a school year. If a teacher gave up 40% of that for school operating expenes. Thats still 150k a year for teacher salaries, and a little less than 100k per teacher per yer going toward school expenses, consider a school has lets say 25 teachers, the school would get over 2 million in operating money from parents alone, not to mention any money coming in from property tax and sales tax (here in talahassee we have 1/2 percent tax for education).

I know my idea isnt very popular but that is my opinion and am prepared for any mud slinging i have coming my way

By MrLiberty

June 22, 2005 02:55 PM | Link to this

The comments from all of you reveal so much.

First, I never said that having children showed a lack of personal responsibility. Rather, assuming that anyone but you should have to pay the FULL cost of raising them does.

As for pel, yes, I do believe that not planning to the best of your ability for the raising of your own children, no matter what happens to you, does show a lack of responsibility. Again, having children is a choice. You do not expect that I should pay for your TV, nor your car, nor your house (yes, I know that the mortgage interest deduction is just another handout). Why should you EXPECT that society pay for your child’s education? By placing the burden on “society” and using the government to insure that money will be confiscated to pay for that, directly alters your own sense of responsibility, your behavior, and your choices. It is a common complaint that nobody takes responsibility for their actions, but do you not see how this “forced charity” relationship that has been created by government only serves to reinforce this kind of behavior?

There is a great book called “Human Action” by Ludwig von Mises, a Nobel Prize winning economist that speaks to all of these issues. You can read it free online at www.mises.org.

Real character is shown in true charity. Yes, despite one’s best efforts, things happen. That is where church, community, etc. step in with charitable giving. But charity is voluntary.

Saying that we ALL pay for services that we don’t use is just another endorcement for the use of government force rather than a support of the free market. I do not pay for stores that I do not shop at. I do not pay for food that I do not freely buy. That the government has chosen to take over providing services that were once provided by individual companies does not make those actions right, nor their funding mechanism any less immoral.

As for the rule of law theory, I certainly cannot argue with the fact that the communists/socialists took over this country back in the 1920’s and 30’s. Through unconstitutional actions by FDR and so many since, and through the mechanism of government education, generation after generation since then have been made to believe that there is no limit to what the government can do, nor any limit to what the government can take from individuals so long as they go through the proper legislative motions (in other words, pass laws).

The Constitution was supposed to protect against this kind of behavior, but the american public turned their back on their history and have allowed the majority to victimize the minority - quite in contrast to the designs of this document, and especially the Bill of Rights.

You folks are all on the “winning side” of current american history. The rest of us are just helping to pick up the check - much against our will.

Passing a law legalizing adultery doesn’t make it any less a sin. Passing a law that says that the government can take my money on your behalf doesn’t either - though technically it does make it legal. We citizens are the one’s who direct our elected officials, and the majority have directed them to pass tax laws that do for some of them what would be illegal if they were to attempt to do it themselves. Why hold a bake sale when a government gun and threat of prison are so much more effective? Yes, I know exactly how government works.

By MrLiberty

June 22, 2005 03:28 PM | Link to this

To Nick

You certainly won’t get any abusive feedback from me, but be prepared for some from the rest. Frankly for too many parents the model of babysitter is pretty appropriate. When most of them can’t wait until they are old enough to start school so that they can stop dealing with private daycare and can’t wait for summer to end so that they can get rid of the kids, one can’t help but wonder why some of these folks even have children.

As for funding, while your idea is certainly creative, it shows how little people really know about how much government schools really cost.

Using your own numbers, a parent would be paying over $7600 per year per student (41 weeks, 31 hours/wk, $6/hr). Thats over 15K for 2, nearly 23K for 3, etc. On a $200,000 house, most parents don’t even pay $2000 no matter how many kids they have. Of course, that same money is paid by homeowners with no kids, or ones who are homeschooling or sending their kids to private school.

In reality, states spend about $7000 per student (some states much more). Using your own figures that is already $210,000. The problem is that the teacher gets only a pittance of that amount, while the rest is spent on useless administration that is required to comply with the littany of unwarranted rules and regulations handed down from both the state and federal government. At 40K for teach, that’s 170K for useless bureaucrats who add nothing to the educational experience.

Without these rules and regulations, private schools spend about $3000 (some less) per student, and homeschoolers spend a small fraction of that to provide an education that by testing and numerous other standards is far superior.

The difference is that these private schools and homeschoolers, have a strong vested interest in the outcome and success of their students, while the government schools do not have to EARN their funding with positive results.

Which might make a positive case for vouchers, were it not for the fact that government money is still stolen through taxation, and with government money comes government regulations, and those are at the root of the problem in the first place. Thankfully there are still places where education can take place without these regulations.

They are called Laws of Economics for a reason.

Interesting suggestion though.

By Nick

June 22, 2005 03:39 PM | Link to this

I totally agree with you, I just think its funny that people can make the comparison of teachers to babysitters when the truth is, they would pay more for a babysitter then they do a public school edcuation (that includes teacher salary, operating expenses, lunch, transportation to/from school, etc.)

By MrLiberty

June 22, 2005 04:15 PM | Link to this

You have a solid point, that further supports the point I was attempting to make about both “ownership” and “responsibility.”

Everyone knows how much an item costs when purchased on the open market. You can shop around for better prices, but because you are paying the money yourself, you can assign “value” to the item. It costs “x” number of hours of labor, you could purchase “z” number of other items instead, etc. If you put more importance on one item you might be willing to pay more for it than one you value less, etc.

When you chose a babysitter you put time and attention into the choice, possibly even going so far as to check references or even criminal records.

With a government school, nothing of the kind goes on. The actual cost for education is around $7000, but you pay a fraction, so there is no real way to appreciate the true “value.” The cost of the service is not voluntary, so there is nothing else that you can choose to spend the money on (not even a better school). The choice of school is determined by the location of the house you buy (whereas good babysitters might drive to you for a bit more money). Even the school you start at may be changed by arbitrary decision of the school board - again you are powerless. You don’t have a choice of teachers. You dont’ have a choice of curriculum. You don’t even have the option to leave with your money if you are unhappy with the service.

It does say a lot that the same parents who are attacking me for attacking them are so willing to trust the free market with babysitting services, food provision, and virtually every other important purchase in their lives but are unwilling to relinquish their emotional attachments to a government- run system with so many problems.

By Karen Armsby

June 23, 2005 09:44 AM | Link to this

Parents are their kids’ first teachers and continue through the school years to be the primary influence for instilling good reading and study habits in them.

While all parents can exert positive influences, not many are suited to homeschool their children. So, through our cities and counties and states we citizens chose, voted for, and established thousands of public schools systems. All of these school systems start at the local level with community support and approval. They operate under the guidance of locally elected school boards with input usually from a state board of education. School board meetings are open to citizen participation even for budget and curriculum decisions. The school boards rule by the choice of the people and are influenced by the continued participation and input of the community. I have always had a choice to be involved or not.

Some people are natural born teachers and they choose the profession of teaching because they love it. They don’t make a lot of money: there are too many administrative rules that restrict their teaching: there’s a mountain of paperwork to complete: and they have to try to teach problem students whose parents are often a bigger problem. They teach because they are good at it and they want to make a difference.

I trusted these public school teachers and was not disappointed in the results over the 16 years my three kids attended public schools. I did have a choice of teachers, because I volunteered in the schools, encouraged my kids who worked hard, and somehow they got the best teachers.

When we built our house 22 years ago, we chose a county with a good school system. During the years my kids were in public schools I worked thousands of volunteer hours both in the classroom and through extracurricular activites to support their schools. While property taxes may pay for school buildings and teacher salaries, the schools are dependent on the individual parent contributions, business partnerships, PTA’s, the multitiude of fundraisers, the volunteers, and the booster clubs to provide extra books and materials for classrooms and school libraries, composite floors for gyms, or even a gym, stadiums and grounds maintenance, orchestra and band instruments, enough science lab materials and equipment, computer programs, supplemental reading programs, copy paper and costs for handouts in every subject area, paper towels and tissues and crayons and pencils, etc. All of this is contributed or the money raised by the stakeholders, the parents of the students, the local business partners, and the community we live in, and we have pride in our schools. We choose to be involved and make our public schools better.

The diatribes against government schools are correct for some teachers, some schools, and some school systems that are failing, mismanaged and students that are not achieving. But for the vast majority of public schools, education is taken seriously by professional teachers, by involved parents and their children, who are achieving and exceeding academic standards.

It’s not a perfect system, but most of us want and need and support public schools. There is always room for improvement in money management. I don’t want the schools to babysit the disruptive kids and the remedy I think is to let them loose. I also think administrators need to cut back the rules and paperwork and let the teachers have the time and authority to teach and govern their students.

I chose public schools for my kids (I attended parochial schools as a child.) I have a sense of ownership and responsibility and the majority of the parents I know at our schools also contribute and participate to make our schools better. We have a choice to participate in school board elections, meetings and decisions. We have a choice to join local school advisory committees and address curriculum and discipline and social issues.

Homeschooling is a good choice for many people, but I chose public schools and I continue to support them even after my three have graduated.

By MrLiberty

June 23, 2005 12:07 PM | Link to this

Forgive me for stating the obvious, but if you do not have the option to not pay, do not have the option to take your money to another provider of service, do not REALLY have a choice over what school your child will attend, then all of the involvement that the government administration allows you to have is just window dressing to make you feel like you are empowered and actually have a choice.

That your kids managed and maybe even succeeded doesn’t change the fact that your “choices” were all a delusion.

If you honestly believe that this wonderful system of government schools came about through open discussion, honest debate, and as a result of the benificent will of the people, then you really need to pick up some books on the history of public education.

As a quick summary, it was modeled after the Prussian education system which was designed primarily as a means to create confomity in society. In this country, it was heavily promoted as a way to counter the great influx of Catholics from Italy and Ireland during the 1800’s. The vehicle of the schools, with their curriculums dictated by the state, would serve to destroy the unique cultures of these immigrants.

You say you “chose”, but before you were ever born, the government “chose” to set up a taxation system for schools that you could not opt out of. When something is already paid for, and so long as it appears “free”, there is a great incentive to use the service. It is easier. Don’t tell me that doesn’t have an influence.

As for homeschoolers, I would say that you are giving too much credit to professional teachers. Many parents may not want to teach their kids, but virtually every parent could do as good if not a better job than the professionals (with an organized curriculum - purchased from any of a 1000+ sites on the internet) simply because the student teacher ration is right. Homeschooling is seen as parent and teacher locked in a house all day, when the reality for many is quite different. Field trips, involvement with other parents and teach-sharing for more specialized subjects all go on, and the kids obviously do quite well.

As for socialization, Columbine and the like show exactly what kind of socialization the government schools provide. Homeschooling provides an opportunity for children to learn from adults, rather than from other kids, how to behave. Sounds like the best plan to me.

By TTB-POTS

June 23, 2005 12:56 PM | Link to this

Wow - such good stuff being debated - I love it!

And I love Karen and Mr. Liberty, too - you’re both great! Karen - I don’t think Mr. Liberty is rude - I think he’s passionate. I don’t see his comments as personal attacks, unlike some of the others I’ve read.

I especially like the fact that he doesn’t bash teachers or parents, but instead chooses to fault the system itself - which, let’s face it, has flaws or we all wouldn’t be here. And I like that Karen brings a calm voice of reason.

Like Karen, I, too, took my children’s public school education seriously, but I also supplemented it at home. I do feel a sense of ownership - there are trees in the schoolyard that I planted - art in the halls that my children created. It’s not a bad thing. However, I do feel like I often had to “work the system” to ensure that I got what my kids needed.

Ayn Rand and Karl Marx both missed something in their idealistic visions - they missed human nature. Humans can be stupid, lazy, greedy, and cruel. Both ideas assume that people will do what’s right and what’s best for the system - that’s not always the case. In a perfect socialist society, who’s going work harder if it’s not going to result in more reward? No one - that’s why it’s only a nice idea in theory. On the flip side, Rand’s ideas require that EVERYONE take personal responsiblity - one look around our society and we see that that’s not true.

So we need to meet somewhere in the middle…

I’m curious, Mr. Liberty, where you stand on the idea of “taxation without representation” - since we have elected representatives, aren’t we giving them permission to decide how to spend our tax dollars? Side note - I’ll have to recheck my history, but wasn’t there something shady about the passing of the income tax law in the first place? Also, second side note - did you see the Supreme Court ruling in the Connecticut land-use case? That’s more robbery than property taxes IMHO.

One other thought on funding…

We all pay different amounts in health insurance, and a lot of it is based on use - use more, pay more. Families pay more than single folks; women pay more than men during child-bearing age - that reverses during the heart-attack years. People with pre-existing conditions may have to pay more. Now a lot of health insurers are asking smokers to pay more. This isn’t meant to start a thread about health insurance or health care - I’m just illustrating that asking those who are likely to use something more to pay more is not unheard of in our society.

Thanks playing - we have a lovely parting gift..Peace out, all!

By Karen Armsby

June 24, 2005 10:13 AM | Link to this

TTB-POTS, Read the Ballroom Dance blog to see some of Mr. Liberty’s rhetoric. Thankfully, he toned it down in this thread.

Mr. Liberty, I am well aware of the roots and development and problems of public school education. It’s not a perfect system and I didn’t come to defend it. You and I differ on the definition of ‘choice.’ You view choice as the present finite options available. You are so wrong and insulting to say that my choices were all a delusion! I view choices as the infinite options that are possible for me to work toward. You see only WHAT IS, and I see WHAT CAN BE.

I did have a choice of schools and if public school had been a disaster for my kids, then I could have chosen a private school. I chose to send my kids to public schools in a school system with good teachers, and I chose to work to improve it for my kids and their classmates at my local level. And I was susccessful.

I am quite capable of homeshooling my kids, but wanted them to gain the experience of working with all kinds of people (rich to poor, smart to dumb)and learn to be good students in competition with other good students and to deal effectively with teachers, even those they didn’t like. My advice to my kids was that the teacher is your boss for the school year, and your job is to learn how to give your boss what she/he expects from you. Later in life when you have a paying job you will also have to learn to work within a system for a boss. I taught them to be positive actors, not negative reactors.

My kids learned to be adults from their parents, their teachers, their scout leaders, and coaches, their theater and orchestra teachers and Sunday school teachers. I didn’t give my kids away to government for education, but rather we worked together with the public school teachers and administrators to educate our kids. And contrary to your sour view of the world, they interacted with their peers with courtesy and respect in high school.

Before you accuse me again of buying into the socialist lock step dumb down BS, let me tell you that I also taught and encouraged my kids to think critically, to question authority, to think creatively outside the box, to read widely and well, to write and to speak effectively, to be leaders, and to be kind and generous to others. I impressed upon them that they had a duty to help someone who was struggling in class, because not all kids were created equally smart, creative, athletic, or understanding. My efforts paid off and I now have three young adults who are achieving well in academics, are creative and kind and are leaders.

Unless we are time travellers none of us has a choice of when or where we are born. We don’t have a choice of the political, economic or school system we are born into either. I do not deny that former conditions influence my life. DUH, we don’t live in a vacuum!

The point in my comments is that we always have a choice in how go forward and deal with the circumstances we are faced with. There is a lot of power in each one of us, and all we have to do is gather people around us who share our vision and work together with a positive attitude to achieve whatever we want.

I don’t blame government for student failure in schools, because WE are the government; we choose and vote for our leaders, and if we are unhappy each one of us needs to work for change. Blaming someone else never gets the job done. Identifying the issues, making a plan and working with others is the way to improve the system.

For school improvement, it takes each parent working with their children, and working with the teachers and with the school system to achieve positive results.