Whereas these taxes should be earmarked for the education of children.
Another argument I’ve heard in favor of private education is the number & cost of federally-mandated but unfunded programs for public schools. No cites on hand, just based on conversations with acquaintences working in the elementary schools.
I may get flamed for this, but I can’t think of another way to say it: because private schools can be selective about enrollment (I’m thinking of very disruptive students here), I thought part of the appeal of private schools was that the teachers could focus on teaching rather than disciplining students. Again, no cites. Apologies if that’s not appropriate for this forum.
There are no “unfunded mandates” on any public schools. States are free to forgo any federal funds for education, but if they take this money there are strings attached. The federal government imposes no requirements on schools aside from the strings attached to federal money. Therefore, there are no “unfunded mandates” because nothing is mandated and any restrictions imposed by the feds is tied to actually accepting money.
Every child has a right to a free-of-charge public education; that’s been written into our government for a long time. Every parent has an obligation to make sure the child gets an education, public or not. Most, not all private schools give kids as good or better education, compared with public schools. The same goes for most homeschoolers, mostly because the prepared materials they use are almost all very good. I’d like to be able to say that the state monitors non-public education to hold it to high standards. Alas, it’s not completely true. Some schools and some kids fall through the cracks.
In most places, it doesn’t work that way. Public schools are paid according to how many students are there each day. So, if a school loses 30 fourth-graders, they’ll have to lay off a teacher, and the class size will stay the same. Private school parents will pay what it costs to educate the kids, but if the voters turn down a school bond issue, the public schools have to use tattered, outdated books another year, and the teachers have to pay for supplies out of their own pockets.
Not really (asuming you are talking about the US). It’s been implicitly understood, but it hasn’t ever been “written into our government”. Even the SCOTUS decision in *Brown *said that when a state offers public education, it must offer it equally to all. But it didn’t say that a state had to offer it. There may be some state constitutions that contain lanaguage about free public education being a right, but I’d be surprised if every state did.
This is the exact reason why we didn’t let our son attend the local elementary school. It was bedlam, 2nd graders shaking down younger kids for lunch money.
2nd graders! Fights. etc. Half the classtime spent trying to keep kids in their seats rather than actually educating. What a waste.
I believe we owe the lions share of our resources to educate those who come to be educated. If some kid pulled a stunt like that in a private school -he’s out -end of story - tough shit if you can’t behave.
The public schools shouldn’t be in the business of “civilizing” unruly students. Solution? No idea - but I know that exposing kids to those disruptive elements is unacceptable.
Ultimately we moved to a different school district that doesn’t have “disrupters”.
Kind of shitty that it came to that.
In Indiana, it is illegal for a student to drop out of education before the age of 16. It’s not only a right, it’s mandatory for a child to be educated.
I don’t know of a state where it is any different. Do you?