Yes it does. I know this point has been discussed here on the boards before, but this would qualify as a situation where direct benefits would be difficult to perceive.
By helping to pay for the education of others’ children through our tax dollars we are as a society giving children opportunity. Even though a particular child may have gone to a sub-standard school doesn’t mean that they may not positively impact your life or at least contribute to socitey in some meaningful way. Because of the education they received, they may go on to become a doctor or lawyer. This of course may not happen, but we don’t have a public education system to ensure that everyone becomes a doctor or lawyer. We do so to try to ensure that everyone has a fair chance to do so.
Arguing anything else would be akin, in my mind at least, to arguing that individuals should receive a tax rebate for roads that they never drive on since they do not use them. I would prefer to pay the amount I still pay for the potential that I might drive on those roads, and for the benefit of those who do drive on them.
Certainly, but the same positive externality applies for private education as well, if not more so - a highly educated person arguably provides more utility than several people receiving substandard educations. So according to your argument, subsidizing private schools and homeschoolers makes perfect sense.
I think the bottom weakness of our school systems is the pervasiveness of school budgets based on property taxes, it simply cannot help but be unequal. Until equality of educational opportunity is the norm, our pretensions about equal opportunity are, and will remain, pious hypocrisy.
Sure, that would be nice. Except we already do the first, and we don’t do the second. So maybe funding isn’t the trick here…
Actually, that’s not what I’m asking. I’m not rich, but if I want to, I can probably afford to continue paying taxes to the public school system and pay for private school. That’s fine. But I’m not talking about me and other parents who can afford it…I’m talking about kids who can’t afford it. The school system gets X number of dollars per child to spend on the local schools. What Shayna is suggesting is that private schools give free educations (through fundraisers or whatever) to poor kids, and taking those X tax dollars that should be spent on them, and spend them on Shayna’s kids, instead.
Of course…I’m not suggesting and never would suggest that we stop funding education.
Wow…something we agree on! I don’t necessarily desire Federal funding, but funding schools through local taxes is an inherent ethical wrong in my opinion.
What you need to understand is, first of all, it does not matter in the slightest what happens to the public school system, providing that overall, students receive a better education. If we start a voucher system, and it means that all the parents pull their kids out and send them to other schools, and this means that the public school has to shut down and all the teachers and administrators lose their jobs, but overall, the students get a better education than they would in the old system, that is OK. This is not a bad thing.
Second, if we start a voucher system, and it means that all the responsible parents pull their kids out and send them to other schools, and therefore the public schools only get the dregs who can’t get accepted at any other school (because they are behavior problems, or their parents aren’t interested enough to look at any other schools, or whatever) and therefore the schools have to scrape along with reduced funding to “educate” students who were likely to fail anyway, that’s OK too, providing the other students get a better education.
What I am trying to make clear is that the well-being of the current public school system is not a worthwhile consideration. No weight should be given to it, compared with the overwhelming importance of whether or not students are being effectively educated.
That’s why I am dismissing Squink’s straw men out of hand. It doesn’t matter what happens to the public schools. It matters much, much more what happens to the students overall.
You are indeed correct, sir. However now we extend into the area of debate over whether or not vouchers or a similar system are indeed more beneficial to children of underprivileged parents or not.
Perhaps to keep from hijacking the thread further a different thread could be started where we can hash the same arguments that I am sure have been debated on this board before. I’ll jump in if it is created otherwise I’ll probably go back to my lurking.
Edit:
My above response applies to this as well I suppose.
My apologies for not being clearer. I didn’t mean to imply that is what you meant. I should clarify what I was saying by stating that by reducing the amount of tax dollars that flow into the public education system we hamper the system’s ability to provide a worthwhile level of education needed for the results I described.
I hardly see our public education system as a failure. I think we should find ways to enhance the present funding to assure for a fairer distribution of resources to provide for a more level playing field, and to try to expand available curriculum for students.
Well, there’s “funding” in buying books and computers and such…and there’s “funding” in paying teachers better salaries to attract better qualified individuals to come and perform one of the most vital tasks in the entire damned economy. Teachers get shit for a wage and really need to be compensated for their time and effort…especially when they have to deal with a lot of parent-zillas.
I think I’ll bow out now, because my opinion on that matter could start a whole new flurry of posts, and I don’t want to hijack this thread any further!
There was also the further demonization of universal healthcare, and how medical decisions should be made between the doctor and the patient, not in the halls of congress. Of course, there is no problem at all with the real medical decisions are being made in the cubicals of insurance companies by some drone trying to save the company a buck and make it to happy hour.
Despite my previous snark, in the combination of these circumstances I do believe it would lead to an increased level of education:
1 – It’s an expanding school district, so otherwise more fixed facilities would be needed for an expanding school population
2 – The amount of the subsidy would be less than the school district spends per pupil, thus having a net effect of more money to spend per pupil.
3 – The children that take advantage of this subsidy would not have otherwise gone to a private school. (If they would have anyway, the net effect is to just hand over money to them [and/or the private schools, since they will realize they can charge more when there is more available money chasing the same number of schools.])
Not all areas of the country are growing, so #1 is out in some instances.
I believe that in order to satisfy #2, the size of the subsidy has to be so small that #3 would not be fulfilled, in other words, no one can afford to send their kids to private schools that wouldn’t have before the subsidy. This of course depends on assuming that the quality is about equal, which I believe that it is once you adjust for parental and child enthusiasm, private schools discretion in acceptance, and the curriculum in some private/religious schools. Which is not to say that private are not better dollar for dollar once you add these in, although that is up for debate, just not better enough to make the subsidy more than a gift to those who are already sending their kids to private schools.
In addition, there is the law of supply and demand. If you think that private schools are a good value now, realize that prices will go up if there are more dollars to throw at them (cf. the spiraling college expenses partially IMO due to the huge amounts of loans and grants available.)
Guys, I think we just have a big misunderstanding here. All mister Enigma is trying to tell us is that poor people need a better chance, so the government should give rich people a bunch of money.
Don’t be silly. People link the quality of public education to the quality of education in general in the same way that people link the unemployment rate with the strength of the economy. You can’t separate one from the other.
You can argue that public education isn’t necessary, or valuable, but you’d be standing pretty much all by yourself. Even Republicans acknowledge that public education is important. Only you seem to be arguing that it might not be necessary to make sure EVERYONE has access to education, and that position is just ridiculous. When public schooling fails, education in general fails. That’s how it is, and there’s really no counter argument to that. If you want to successfully educate your entire population, you HAVE to keep a public education system healthy. Abandoning public schools is not an option.
Does this mean you support a voucher system that pays 100% of the tuition to a private school for all students currently in the public schools? Because that’s sure what it sounds like. Otherwise there is no way to achieve the goal of a better education for any student who wants it, because poor parents cannot afford to make up the shortfall between the vouchers and full tuition.
I don’t necessarily desire Federal funding, but funding schools through local taxes is an inherent ethical wrong in my opinion.