Should taxpayer dollars be used to fund private education?

[Undertoad]

Personally I'd like to see more options for expelling the bad apples from traditional schools and putting them in vocational training instead, which will ultimately be more helpful to them than a class like World Geography anyway.

That sounds like a good idea, but it does mean that a lot of the 40-50 top kids would suddenly be ranked in the lower half. It is politically preferable that the vocationally-oriented kids stick around, so that everyone who wants to be, can be ranked superior.

[Clodfobble]

Originally Posted by Beestie

What Fairfax County did, and its public school system is already very good, is create a magnet school within the system to send the best and brightest to.

Austin has done that with several schools. Except they turned it around--they declared the worst schools to be "magnet schools" to lure the bright kids to transfer in. That, plus strategically rearranging their students with complex bussing (kids on one side of town go to a school on the other side) they've ended up with a bunch of mediocre schools and no really good or really terrible ones. Which is one form of success, I guess.

[Beestie]

One other problem of allocating school funds to paying private tuition is that the choice of how to best use the funds becomes a Sophie's choice of resource allocation.

In other words, this year the school system budgets $300 to send 3 kids to private school. That $300 was not spent on public education - it was withheld from the public school system to "right a wrong." Next year, there is a budget surplus of $1,000. So, do we hire an extra teacher for public school X (which would be a huge help to all 500 students there) or do we send 10 kids to private school?

[Luisa]

But don't the rich kids parents who send their kids to private schools also pay taxes that subsidize the public schools? In which case, isn't that an imbalance in the educational funding? After all, they are paying taxes for school system to which their children are not participatory in? So, just for the sake of arguement, shouldn't the private system be subsidized so the parents can get benefits from their tax dollars as well?

Keep in mind, I have not changed my stand on the issue. I just want to hear all sides here

[piercehawkeye45]

Originally Posted by Luisa

But don't the rich kids parents who send their kids to private schools also pay taxes that subsidize the public schools? In which case, isn't that an imbalance in the educational funding? After all, they are paying taxes for school system to which their children are not participatory in? So, just for the sake of arguement, shouldn't the private system be subsidized so the parents can get benefits from their tax dollars as well?

Keep in mind, I have not changed my stand on the issue. I just want to hear all sides here

No, no, no, no, no. Everyone must contribute to paying for public schools or the system will fall apart. It is like having the choice to pay social security taxes or give to private charity, if you were given the choice and everyone gave to private charity then welfare would fall apart. It is the parent's choice to send their kids to private schooling, they shouldn't hurt other kids becuause of their choices.

[tw]

Originally Posted by Luisa

But don't the rich kids parents who send their kids to private schools also pay taxes that subsidize the public schools? ... So, just for the sake of arguement, shouldn't the private system be subsidized so the parents can get benefits from their tax dollars as well?

The public school, which contribute to fabulous American success in 1900s, is an investment by every worker. Only countries that educated everyone achieved. Even if it is an illegal immigrant who will be here the rest of his life - we all pay for his education because that is investing in America's future.

The average student costs more than $20,000 annually to educate properly. You want to send your kid elsewhere? Fine. But like the single man and grandparents - we all pay annually to educate kids in public schools. We all must make that investment annually. That was America's secret to success. That invest is necessary for America 20 and 30 years from now. Unfair is to not have everyone paying annually for the education system.

Want to send your kid to a private school? Fine. Nobody is stopping you. But still, just like every taxpayer who does not have kids, you must pay for a public school system - to invest in the nation.

[piercehawkeye45]

Going to a bad school will hurt the kid in more areas than just an SAT score. He/she will probably take a lot of crap from the other kids which will hurt his or her self esteem and motivation. Just a different set of friends or just a group of friends in general can work miracles with both getting someone ahead and pushing them down.

If you want to fix inner city schools you have to:
Get more after school activities
Get rid of the idea that they are second rate to white suburban kids
Get good influences in the building (teachers)
Reward good grades
Pound in the idea that they need an education to get anywhere
Get rid of the idea that a 'gansta' life is glorious

If you look at them, a majority of those are mindsets, inner city kids are screwed before they even start. Giving the school more money will help a little bit but won't solve anything.

[AgentApathy]

Originally Posted by piercehawkeye45

Going to a bad school will hurt the kid in more areas than just an SAT score. He/she will probably take a lot of crap from the other kids which will hurt his or her self esteem and motivation. Just a different set of friends or just a group of friends in general can work miracles with both getting someone ahead and pushing them down.

If you want to fix inner city schools you have to:
Get more after school activities
Get rid of the idea that they are second rate to white suburban kids
Get good influences in the building (teachers)
Reward good grades
Pound in the idea that they need an education to get anywhere
Get rid of the idea that a 'gansta' life is glorious

If you look at them, a majority of those are mindsets, inner city kids are screwed before they even start. Giving the school more money will help a little bit but won't solve anything.

I totally, totally agree. I mentor a child in a bad section of Austin in a school that includes the child residents of four housing complexes and at least one homeless shelter. I see this every time I go there and especially when I talk to my mentee: they see life on welfare and in public housing/shelters and as a young unwed mother as normal because it's all they know. My mentee is the 4th child (other sibs are 19, 18, and 15) of a 35 year old mother who is pregnant again, this time with a Down's syndrome baby, which promises to be disastrous for both baby and family. Dad is in prison, and she was with her older sister at the mall a few weeks ago when the sister got busted shoplifting. They live in a homeless shelter, mom works at a fast food restaurant, and mom *claims* that she's off the bottle for the pregnancy but everyone is a little doubtful about this. There is no hope for change in this situation but for what ambition my mentee brings to the table, which is the reason I am there. As a relatively successful woman of 35 with no kids and no dependency on the government or drugs/alcohol, my purpose is to be proof to her that good choices yield a good life. I am one of the very few good influences in this child's life, which puts no small amount of pressure on me, but I'm happy to be there.

That said, a private school for young women is opening in Austin in honor of Ann Richards, our former governor, who was a strong, dynamic woman who overcame the gender barrier to become Texas' first elected female governor. She is known for overcoming alcohol addiction and catapulting women, Hispanics, and blacks into government positions formerly held only by white males. I've seen applications for Ann Richards' school in the counselor's office at my mentee's school, and I really hope that some of those kids will be able to attend that school and see a world bigger than the squalid one they live in so that they can strive to achieve a better life for themselves.

If a kid shows potential and has ambition, I'm all about sending that kid to whatever educational opportunity will best make that child shine and become a more fully contributing member of society. There is nothing to be gained by anyone to limit the potential of brilliance because the average kid or below average kid can't do it. It's just this kind of plan that I believe will reduce our nation from a world power to a nation of polar haves and have nots within 50 years.

[Griff]

Originally Posted by xoxoxoBruce

#1 - Parents
#2 - Parents
#3 - Parents

amen

Originally Posted by footfootfoot

I pay about $800. a year in school taxes. I don't plan on sending my kids to our local school for a very long list of reasons.

Parental engagement.

For someone who will probably end up teaching in a publicly funded program, I have an odd take on this issue. Public education should only be for the poor or disabled. PE allows parents to disengage from their children's lives and makes the state the parent.

[Sundae]

Originally Posted by Griff

Public education should only be for the poor or disabled. PE allows parents to disengage from their children's lives and makes the state the parent.

I'd be interested in hearing more about this point of view, because at the moment it has absolutely floored me, so I think I have either misunderstood you, or you have access to information I don't.

I went to a state school (what you call a public school) as did almost everyone I know. Some of these people did have parents who disengaged from their lives, but this would have been no different if they went to private school.

In fact the few people I have known who went to private school were more or less left to get one with things - one person's family seemed to have the view that as they had paid for their son's education they had done more than most and therefore discharged their parental responsibility.

In an ideal world I think all children should attend state schools. The money that is currently spent on private education could be funnelled back into the state system via fundraising drives and donations from those who could afford it. Children would mix with all classes, types and abilities at school and therefore get a better understanding of different classes, abilities and lifestyles. And those who wanted more for their children could supplement state education with extra curricular activities. The great and the good who care about their children's education would make far more of an effort to raise the standards of state schools if it directly affected their own children.

I know it will never happen, I know it's impractical on many levels but I also know it's similar to the way I was educated until I was 12 and it gave me a great start in life.

[Aliantha]

When considering the problems in education, if you had to choose, would you say this is a social issue or an economic issue?

[piercehawkeye45]

Originally Posted by Aliantha

When considering the problems in education, if you had to choose, would you say this is a social issue or an economic issue?

I would say social, it isn't that we don’t' have the money to fund the inner city schools it is just that we don't know what to do with the money. If you send more money to them it will most likely be wasted, if you don't send money it only makes things worse.

In Wisconsin, there is a nation wide test and the schools that get a higher score will get more funding while the schools that get lower scores get less. I don't get the point of this except to make the rich richer and the poor poorer.

Where did anyone first learn the numbers? An assumption without first learning facts: private schools must be better education. An assumption based in business school logic: because the education is more expensive, then it must be better. Folks - this thread is chock full of assumptions better described as lies. No wonder George Jr thinks we are all so dumb as to believe his lies about an Iraq Surge.

I don't know what public school you are talking about. I am talking about inner city schools not suburban schools, where you have a good point. Suburban schools are very good and are arguably better than private but inner city schools? I would like to see statistics saying that those are better than private.

tw brings up a good point nevertheless. I still think we should get some inner city kids out of those public schools and move them to better public schools. It won't cost any more money to taxpayers and give some kids a better opportunity to succeed.

[tw]

Originally Posted by piercehawkeye45

I would say social, it isn't that we don’t' have the money to fund the inner city schools it is just that we don't know what to do with the money. If you send more money to them it will most likely be wasted, if you don't send money it only makes things worse.

The results in Newark NJ were famous. Did you read it? Annoying. Yes - because reality is that blunt. State of NJ took control of the Newark Education system. They threw so much money into it that students in Newark had more money per student than any other state public school. And still the school system was not performing.

Money does not solve problems. If it did, then GM cars would be the world's best. Instead, GM cars are among the world's worst. When money is a solution, then we have communism or graduates of the business schools.

It is a well proven fact even in schools. 85% of all problems are directly traceable to top management. No way around god's 1st commandment. Without first learning concepts of quality, then a solution is not possible. What is the enemy of business school propaganda? Concepts even taught by William Edward Deming. Another cited an example previously: 'The Goal' by Goldratt and Cox. Different description. Same concept. Too touchy-feely for some because it also requires another important principle - coming from where the work gets done.

Throwing money at a problem is what Ross Perot described as GM's problem. Roger Smith - classic MBA - would throw money at problems as if money were a grenade. Want to see which schools have better top management? Look at the parking lot on Parents-Teacher night. 85% of all problems are directly traceable to who?

[Aliantha]

Send more teachers not more money. Smaller class sizes means better outcomes for everyone. From the literature I've read, that is one of the biggest challenges faced by inner urban schools in large cities in the US. Of course, that's once they actually get the kids to go to school. Poor attendance is another huge issue which is again a social one.

[tw]

Originally Posted by Aliantha

Send more teachers not more money. Smaller class sizes means better outcomes for everyone.

Even that class size assumption has been proven, in studies, to only be a myth. Somehow assumptions again promoted as fact.