# Public education, yes or no?



## Dan.... (Jul 20, 2007)

*Should the taxpayers (whether from property taxes, income tax, sales tax, etc...) be responsible for providing for public education? *

Here are the options above, but more fully expounded: 

1. Yes - all children should be required to attend. -Education is the responsibility of the state. All parents should be held legally accountable (criminal sanctions apply) to see that their children attend public education. 

2. Yes - funded by local taxes, and fed funding -This is the status quo. All tax payers at local, state and federal levels are responsible to provide for the public education system, although, individual households may choose to provide other means (yet still must pay their taxes). 

3. Same as above but with no Federal revenues. (All taxpayers at the local (and/or state levels) must contribute). 

4. Yes - but funded only by participants - Public schools should be overseen by the public sector and provided for through taxes. However, if the household chooses other means for providing for their children's education, they should become exempt by some means (e.g., by tax credits). 

5. No - ed. is private sector, no gvrnmnt oversight. Education should be provided for completely in the private sector, without government (local, state and federal) oversight. (The private schools are liable to the government only in the protection of the rights of the citizens, eg., no discrimination). The various schools are fully funded by those who send their children to the school, and hence, the schools are accountable to their customers (i.e., the parents). 

6. No -same as above option, but w/gvrnmnt oversight. Private sector, but the local governments should exercise some say in educational standards. 

7. No - homeschooling is the only option. -Self explanatory. 

8. Other, please expound. 

Okay, I hope I covered everything (but I'm sure I missed something)please pick one and expound on it.


----------



## Theoretical (Jul 20, 2007)

I pick option 5. Even in a Christian government, education is the responsibility of the parents, with the church and private entities needing to be the ones to provide charity funding. Government education, even in the very best government, will still have a dangerous degree of influence over the children's hearts and minds.


----------



## LadyFlynt (Jul 20, 2007)

Because of the variances within the Christian community, I would not be able to agree with Scott in the case of a "Christian Government".

#5


----------



## Herald (Jul 20, 2007)

I voted for #5 but realize that answer does not address the inability of certain segments of the population to afford a formal education for their children. We homeschool but not everyone does or is convinced in that area. The fact is that majority of children in the United States are products of the public school system. My answer is more of a Polly Anna wish.


----------



## Theoretical (Jul 20, 2007)

LadyFlynt said:


> Because of the variances within the Christian community, I would not be able to agree with Scott in the case of a "Christian Government".
> 
> #5


That's a good point. On further reflection, I agree with you, so I edited my post.


----------



## toddpedlar (Jul 20, 2007)

BaptistInCrisis said:


> I voted for #5 but realize that answer does not address the inability of certain segments of the population to afford a formal education for their children. We homeschool but not everyone does or is convinced in that area. The fact is that majority of children in the United States are products of the public school system. My answer is more of a Polly Anna wish.



I'm not sure whether the inability of certain segments of the population to afford a formal education for their children is something that needs to be considered in the decision about what kind of educational system is proper. Is formal education somehow a "basic human right?" Certainly this is what the establishment says is the case... but I'm not sure I could construct an argument in favor of such a position.


----------



## Beth Ellen Nagle (Jul 20, 2007)

#5 and I agree with Mr. Brown. I plan to homeschool and co-op with other homeschooling families.


----------



## jsup (Jul 20, 2007)

#5. Even though I support homeschooling whole-heartedly, there are some people that can't or shouldn't be the teachers of education to their children. The government has no place in education, that should be the responsibilities of the families to oversee.


----------



## Dan.... (Jul 20, 2007)

#5.

To me it comes back to the question of whether the governments (whether local, state or federal) are charity organizations. Charity is a good thing, but it should not be forced on the taxpayer. 

Not only, but as a taxpayer, I am being forced to fund the teaching of philosophical views that I consider unacceptable. (I put this in the same category as government funding for abortion. I should not have to pay for abortions, nor should I have to pay to have children taught immoral philosophies). 

As for the expense of paying for private education, I note that I pay approx $3200 per year to the local school district (via property tax). That is not to mention whatever I pay in income taxes for education. This I have been paying long before my children are of school age, and probably, will be paying long after. I also note that private education costs typically start between $2500 and up per student: 

Link here

Link here

...if that $3200+ in education tax were still in our pockets (where it should be), maybe we'd be more able to afford private education. 


Note the following article in which local private educators were more efficient per student than local public educators: 

Link here

There are different price tags at various schools, just as there are different price tags at various auto dealerships, or different grades of fuel at a gas station. You can pay for an 87 octane education for your child, or a 92 octane education. 

In the private sector, the schools answer to the customer, i.e., the parent. Those schools with higher standards have a draw to the parent that schools with lower standards may not have. If a school wants to stay in business, they will figure out how to balance their quality of education with the price tag.


----------



## LadyFlynt (Jul 20, 2007)

Theoretical said:


> That's a good point. On further reflection, I agree with you, so I edited my post.


----------



## Theoretical (Jul 20, 2007)




----------



## LadyFlynt (Jul 20, 2007)

Also on those that can't afford it...

1) there are many ways to homeschool for less than it cost to provide clothes and paper for the child to attend public school

2) it is amazing how much people "can't afford" and yet, their children have name brand clothing and every electronic game equipment there is (I saw this happen in E. St. L....however, there are those that truely have nothing)

3) Charity should start with people, not the government. Churches can start schools without insisting on outrageous fees.

4) Communities used to start schools and provide for their teacher's expenses. 

5) Granted everyone gets what they can afford...but amazingly, we've had scientists come from uneducated slavery, presidents come from homeschooling and borrowed books, bums/non-thinkers/criminals come out of the "best education money could buy". I've seen people that are well-off, some that have millions, that never moved past the eighth grades...some with enough money to buy a farm, their own personal combines and other impliments, housing, and even new vehicles that many here have only drooled over...bought outright and by the age of 18-21. All of the above have come out of public and private sectors. Therefore, I don't place much weight the price of the education, but rather upon the educator and the student, as well as their ability to combine efforts.


----------



## Southern Presbyterian (Jul 20, 2007)

toddpedlar said:


> I'm not sure whether the inability of certain segments of the population to afford a formal education for their children is something that needs to be considered in the decision about what kind of educational system is proper. Is formal education somehow a "basic human right?" Certainly this is what the establishment says is the case... but I'm not sure I could construct an argument in favor of such a position.





Everyone should be educated to the degree that their abilities, life's calling, and pocketbook allow.


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Jul 20, 2007)

Where's the option for: As long as my kids are educated they can send all the pagan kids with wicked parents into the factory to work


----------



## blhowes (Jul 20, 2007)

I selected the last option, _Other, please expound_. I'm not against public education, per se, and I think it should be available to any child. They shouldn't be required to attend public schools, but they should have that option.

I think its a good idea for the government to have some oversight over private schools, and even home-schools, though minimally. I don't think its valid to assume that just because a child goes to public schools that they're receiving a bad education, nor do I think its valid to assume that just because a child goes to a private school or is homeschooled that they're receiving a good education. In public schools, children have to take MCAS tests every few years to show that the children are learning their math, english, science, etc. properly, and that their teachers are doing a good job teaching. Requiring this of private schools I don't think would be a bad idea.

I think there should be more of a level playing field for parents to choose between public/private schooling. Parents should be given the option of applying whatever money that they've paid (through taxes) towards private education if they so choose.


----------



## LadyFlynt (Jul 20, 2007)

Bob, so you believe that education is necessary to survival and the government should make it mandatory (yes, they already have, I know)? You don't see this as a private issue?


----------



## blhowes (Jul 20, 2007)

LadyFlynt said:


> Bob, so you believe that education is necessary to survival and the government should make it mandatory (yes, they already have, I know)? You don't see this as a private issue?


I think its a private issue to some extent, which is why I think parents should have the option, and not be required to send their children to public schools. To what extent its a private issue, I'm not sure. Should parents have the option of not educating their children (other than teaching them the scriptures) at all, if that's their choice?


----------



## CDM (Jul 20, 2007)

blhowes said:


> I selected the last option, _Other, please expound_. I'm not against public education, per se, and I think it should be available to any child. They shouldn't be required to attend public schools, but they should have that option.
> 
> I think its a good idea for the government to have some oversight over private schools, and even home-schools, though minimally. I don't think its valid to assume that just because a child goes to public schools that they're receiving a bad education, nor do I think its valid to assume that just because a child goes to a private school or is homeschooled that they're receiving a good education. In public schools, children have to take MCAS tests every few years to show that the children are learning their math, english, science, etc. properly, and that their teachers are doing a good job teaching. Requiring this of private schools I don't think would be a bad idea.
> 
> I think there should be more of a level playing field for parents to choose between public/private schooling. Parents should be given the option of applying whatever money that they've paid (through taxes) towards private education if they so choose.





> Requiring this of private schools I don't think would be a bad idea.



Well, then, they wouldn't be 'Private' anymore now would they? What would they then become? Oh, subservient to a lawbreaking Centralized State.

Doublethink. See 1984.



Anyone here read the Communist Manifesto?


----------



## LadyFlynt (Jul 20, 2007)

Too true, Mangum...unfortunately some states refuse to see homeschooling for what it is...private education. Oh and they do require testing of private school students.

Yep...no freedom here.


----------



## toddpedlar (Jul 20, 2007)

blhowes said:


> I think its a good idea for the government to have some oversight over private schools, and even home-schools, though minimally.



Home schools? Can you explain how you've come to this view?



> I don't think its valid to assume that just because a child goes to public schools that they're receiving a bad education, nor do I think its valid to assume that just because a child goes to a private school or is homeschooled that they're receiving a good education. In public schools, children have to take MCAS tests every few years to show that the children are learning their math, english, science, etc. properly, and that their teachers are doing a good job teaching. Requiring this of private schools I don't think would be a bad idea.



Please, Bob, this is really surprising... can you explain more why this is your view? Why should the federal government have any right at all to dictate anything about private schools - and home schools? What would the purpose of such oversight be?


----------



## Davidius (Jul 20, 2007)

I chose #5. 

Even if there are some upsides to public schooling, it still carries the burden of needing _my_ money to send other people to school. I would rather have the choice where to put my charity monies. Also, when the government begins to tell local schools how to operate and what to teach, problems quickly materialize.


----------



## LadyFlynt (Jul 20, 2007)

toddpedlar said:


> Home schools? Can you explain how you've come to this view?
> 
> 
> 
> Please, Bob, this is really surprising... can you explain more why this is your view? Why should the federal government have any right at all to dictate anything about private schools - and home schools? What would the purpose of such oversight be?


I also wonder what then the purpose would be of homeschooling. It will eventually tread on many of those reasons.


----------



## calgal (Jul 20, 2007)

I agree with Bob that there needs to be some oversight for homeschoolers and some assistance to "teach the teacher" if you will. My friends and relatives who teach are always attending conferences (the good ones want to be able to learn constantly). I am concerned not about the many wonderful homeschool parents BTW. While I do respect the right of parents to homeschool, there are some "unschoolers" who frankly do not educate their children in any way shape form or incarnation. These folks do a disservice to the HS community and most importantly to the kids. It would be a good thing to hold parents accountable to work with their kiddies and provide mom or dad with resources.


----------



## blhowes (Jul 20, 2007)

toddpedlar said:


> Home schools? Can you explain how you've come to this view?
> 
> 
> 
> Please, Bob, this is really surprising... can you explain more why this is your view? Why should the federal government have any right at all to dictate anything about private schools - and home schools? What would the purpose of such oversight be?


I suppose to guard against parents dropping the ball when it comes to educating their children. If a parent doesn't educate their child properly, they're held accountable (before God) for their lack of responsibility in that area. The parents are held accountable, but the children are the casualty. 

You might educate your children privately based on principles in the scriptures. You're educating your child the way God intends. But what about parents who don't educate their children that way, who don't value education the way you do? Do parents have the right to not educate their children as they see fit?


----------



## LadyFlynt (Jul 20, 2007)

There are plenty of resources already for parents...even without the conferences. The point isn't providing resources, it's government control....and does every child NEED to be in school through 17years of age. Why don't we make college mandatory then?

Observations from highschool (and yes, my children will be educated through those years, though most likely they will be taking college courses during those years...and because most of them intend on going into the medical profession): Do most highschool young men become professionals? No. Do a good majority become bored and a segment drop out? Yes. Have you ever wondered why? Because they spend too much time in school, don't have goals to go beyond, yet are kept from working while they are at home (most companies can't/won't hire till they are 16).

I happen to live on the fringes of a culture that run differently than the 'state mandated'....young me NEED to be able to work or train in skills...not repeating the same grammar lessons they had in 5th grade.

Now I support those that move along and actually teach them something more. Heavens, teenagers were GRADUATING college a hundred years ago. Why? Because they didn't beat the horse to death. Okay, we have those that are behind...bring back the smaller, multilevel schools and teach to their level, not their age.


----------



## LadyFlynt (Jul 20, 2007)

blhowes said:


> I suppose to guard against parents dropping the ball when it comes to educating their children. If a parent doesn't educate their child properly, they're held accountable (before God) for their lack of responsibility in that area. The parents are held accountable, but the children are the casualty.
> 
> You might educate your children privately based on principles in the scriptures. You're educating your child the way God intends. But what about parents who don't educate their children that way, who don't value education the way you do? Do parents have the right to not educate their children as they see fit?


And who, pray tell, determines "proper education"? The amish have different views on that. People within the same church have different views. I had one in a church I went to that claimed I wasn't "really teaching" my children because I didn't hold a degree.

(next I'll have to have a degree to give birth, breastfeed, teach my children to walk and talk and to count)


----------



## toddpedlar (Jul 20, 2007)

blhowes said:


> I suppose to guard against parents dropping the ball when it comes to educating their children. If a parent doesn't educate their child properly, they're held accountable (before God) for their lack of responsibility in that area. The parents are held accountable, but the children are the casualty.



Yes, and it is a dreadful thing - yet parents are held accountable before God for all kinds of things, not least of which is the proper feeding of their children. Should the State create and enforce laws to prevent parents from feeding their children a diet of cheetos and Choco-bomb cereal? How much intrusion are you willing to swallow?



> You might educate your children privately based on principles in the scriptures. You're educating your child the way God intends. But what about parents who don't educate their children that way, who don't value education the way you do? Do parents have the right to not educate their children as they see fit?



Parents have the right to educate their children however they see fit, not as the State determines is fit. Why does the State have any proper right to determine such things?


----------



## jsup (Jul 20, 2007)

LadyFlynt said:


> And who, pray tell, determines "proper education"?
> (next I'll have to have a degree to give birth, breastfeed, teach my children to walk and talk and to count)



Exactly right! To say that there must be "proper education" then you have to have someone controlling the education. That brings us back to square one: government control. A government's role is to uphold the moral and civil laws of the land. How education ever get thrown into their responsibility list is beyond me? It doesn't even make logical sense.

In Karl Marx's Communist Manifesto you will see that Marx pushes free education administered *by the government*. Hmmm? Are we still Capitalists?


----------



## Reformed Baptist (Jul 20, 2007)

We are homeschooling all 5 of our kids. 2 are in school now, but all 5 will be homeschooled. Ive taken a lot of flack for homeschooling. Stay the course..


----------



## blhowes (Jul 20, 2007)

If you don't mind, I'd like to backtrack a bit. As much as I value the importance of defending my own ideas (jk), maybe it'd be beneficial to explore the hypothetical idea that I'm wrong about what I've been saying (bear with me, I know it stretches your imagination) and that I'm basing what I'm saying on non-biblical thoughts.

Let's explore what the Bible says about the parental/governmental responsibilities. As a starting point:

Deu 6:6,7 And these words, which I command thee this day, shall be in thine heart: And thou shalt teach them diligently unto thy children, and shalt talk of them when thou sittest in thine house, and when thou walkest by the way, and when thou liest down, and when thou risest up.​
God expects us to diligently teach our children God's word. What else does the Bible teach about a parent's responsibility to teach their children?

What authority does the Bible give governments?


----------



## blhowes (Jul 20, 2007)

Reformed Baptist said:


> We are homeschooling all 5 of our kids. 2 are in school now, but all 5 will be homeschooled. Ive taken a lot of flack for homeschooling. Stay the course..


Do you have a teaching degree?



(just kidding) May God richly bless your efforts as you homeschool your kids.


----------



## SRoper (Jul 20, 2007)

I guess I've now officially lost any claim to be libertarian as I chose option 3. Contra the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, I don't believe there is a right to free and mandatory elementary education. However, if the state does not provide education for those who want it, I'm afraid we will have many more people who are functionally illiterate, and we will end up paying more in higher crime rates.


----------



## RamistThomist (Jul 20, 2007)

blhowes said:


> Do you have a teaching degree?
> 
> 
> 
> .



I do. and plan to homeschool. I will be certified in less than a year.


----------



## JohnV (Jul 20, 2007)

My wife and I started with homeschool. We were one of the first to make a public stand, allowing ourselves to be interviewed for the news media. It made the front page of the local news, and made the six O'clock national evening news. We received a number of acknowledgements from family and friends, but also from people that we didn't know. We also got a little cold shoulder from other homeschoolers who didn't want publicity, and especially from the Christian School in our area. The public school boards were generally quite receptive. 

But some strange ideas and agendas began to infiltrate and take over the homeschooling in our area. For the most part we stood alone. As far as I know we still do. We still don't know of any homeschooling organization that is consistent with the original ideal. 

We have come full circle, in a way, in that we have had to rethink all of education, right from the ground up. It is inherently a communal endeavour and a parental responsibility. But the real contention seems to be more about what education is rather than who sees to it. If those who oversee it, whether government or parents, do not have a clear idea of what education is, then of course their overseeing is going to compromised. 

Well, that's my two cents. It looks like I favour #2, but I agree with Bob too.


----------



## jsup (Jul 20, 2007)

blhowes said:


> Do you have a teaching degree?



You seem to be unimpressed with homeschooling. Have you run into lousy examples?


----------



## Answerman (Jul 20, 2007)

I chose homeschooling is the only option, but with one caviat. Some of the teaching may be delegated to trustworthy and capable Christian teachers. The critical thing is that the parents escpecially the father not abducate the responsibility of obeying God's clear directive to bring them up in the nurture and admonition of the Lord as well as the commands He gives in Deut 6:6-9 as Bob quoted. If you read the first 9 verses of Deut 6 carefully, I think that you will see that God is basically saying, if you love Me then you will see to it that you demonstrate your love by diligently teaching your children that the most important thing in life is studying and obeying all that God commands of us. I believe that this Biblical truth is one area that the modern church has neglected to emphasize and we are suffering from this de-emphasis.


----------



## blhowes (Jul 20, 2007)

jsup said:


> You seem to be unimpressed with homeschooling. Have you run into lousy examples?


I didn't mean to give that impression. Its admirable when parents put in the effort and make the necessary sacrifices to properly homeschool their children. I only know first hand of a one couple who've homeschooled their children. They moved away before their children were school age, so I can only assume they'd be good examples of homeschooling. I have no reason to think otherwise.


----------



## LadyFlynt (Jul 20, 2007)

Answerman said:


> I chose homeschooling is the only option, but with one caviat. Some of the teaching may be delegated to trustworthy and capable Christian teachers. The critical thing is that the parents escpecially the father not abducate the responsibility of obeying God's clear directive to bring them up in the nurture and admonition of the Lord as well as the commands He gives in Deut 6:6-9 as Bob quoted. If you read the first 9 verses of Deut 6 carefully, I think that you will see that God is basically saying, if you love Me then you will see to it that you demonstrate your love by diligently teaching your children that the most important thing in life is studying and obeying all that God commands of us. I believe that this Biblical truth is one area that the modern church has neglected to emphasize and we are suffering from this de-emphasis.



I agree. The reason for answering #5 is that we are dealing with a country full of people and they aren't all Christian. Thus, it should be a private matter, with no gvmt influence or controls. It one person wishes to homeschool because that is their belief, let them...in their own manner. Hire a tutor, attend private school, have a community put up a school for those that don't wish to do the above...all fine. But let it and the supporters of each CHOOSE and maintain control over their OWN children and their OWN money.


----------



## Davidius (Jul 20, 2007)

What is the difference between having public schools funded only by those who attend and having private schools? Wouldn't those who chose that option just rather have private schools so that the curriculum can be more individually tailored?


----------



## toddpedlar (Jul 20, 2007)

CarolinaCalvinist said:


> What is the difference between having public schools funded only by those who attend and having private schools? Wouldn't those who chose that option just rather have private schools so that the curriculum can be more individually tailored?



I think the difference there is that the public school funded-by-participants-only is a government-run, government mandated institution, whereas the option for only private schools implies (it seems to me) less governmental entanglement with the schools... at least this is the impression I got from the list given at the outset.


----------



## Davidius (Jul 20, 2007)

toddpedlar said:


> I think the difference there is that the public school funded-by-participants-only is a government-run, government mandated institution, whereas the option for only private schools implies (it seems to me) less governmental entanglement with the schools... at least this is the impression I got from the list given at the outset.



That's the impression I got as well. I was just wondering why anyone would _want_ government entanglement. If one supports public schools that are only funded by the taxes of those who use the service, then one is only a step away from private schooling. Why not just take the extra step?


----------



## LadyFlynt (Jul 20, 2007)

CarolinaCalvinist said:


> What is the difference between having public schools funded only by those who attend and having private schools? Wouldn't those who chose that option just rather have private schools so that the curriculum can be more individually tailored?


Personally, I don't see a difference. I guess the only difference I can see would be if the community wished to extended charitably toward those that want to attend but "can't" afford to. But then private schools can do the same. I guess you could say a religiously run school vs a community run school.


----------



## Dan.... (Jul 20, 2007)

CarolinaCalvinist said:


> That's the impression I got as well. I was just wondering why anyone would _want_ government entanglement. If one supports public schools that are only funded by the taxes of those who use the service, then one is only a step away from private schooling. Why not just take the extra step?



Because then politicians wouldn't be able to run on a "pro-education" platform , whatever that means.


----------



## 5solasmom (Jul 20, 2007)

I chose #6 before reading the longer definitions of each in the OP. 

I thought the "paid for participants only" infered those with children IN the public schools, not the government. Which I guess would then make them private as opposed to public, then. 

See what happens when you don't ponder before responding? 

Unfortunately, the reality of the government removing themselves (and conseqently ridding the taxation for it) from the education sector is about as realistic as all the ice caps melting and the oceans rising 20 feet in the next 10 years.


----------



## BJClark (Jul 20, 2007)

I know many people who choose to homeschool their kids that I have the utmost respect for, they do an awesome job. While I also know others who claim to be homeschooling their children yet, all they do is put in a 'teaching video' for their kids to watch and thats what they watch...

When my son was in a "Christian School" they had someone sitting in the class monitoring the kids, all she did was pass out worksheets, put in a video with someone else actually teaching, then she sat there, she looked over the papers and graded them by comparing them to the "teacher's worksheet' that came with the material..she didn't know the material herself, so she couldn't sit down with the kids and show them why they got the wrong answers..I'm assuming the parents I know who do this, are using the same material that school used.

While I know not all Christian schools are like that, I'd take a public education over that any day...because that is not educating the kids..

I also know of some homeschoolers who take classes online at a Virtual School, much like online college courses, and the parents just leave the kids alone on the computer all day doing 'school' work. And the only interaction they have with their kids is taking them to and from various activities..and then they pat themselves on the back because they are 'homeschooling' their kids. When in reality, someone else is educating their kids, their kids just aren't sitting in a public school class room all day..

Again, I know some parents who homeschool their kids and are very active in the actual teaching and checking..but there are also many parents who aren't...and we personally can not afford to pay the $3,200 per pupil (less 10% discount for additional students) tution the local Churches here now charge for kids to go to their schools...yes it covers books and supplies, insurance for the school, teachers salaries, school upkeep and soforth, but it doesn't include school uniforms that are also required or field trips, or project materials, or a whole host of other things they also need money for...and I certainly don't spend that much in school supplies, projects, clothes, field trips and such throughout a school year in the public school they attend now..for four kids.


----------



## SRoper (Jul 20, 2007)

CarolinaCalvinist said:


> What is the difference between having public schools funded only by those who attend and having private schools? Wouldn't those who chose that option just rather have private schools so that the curriculum can be more individually tailored?



If you read the full description it gives a different understanding than the short description implies.



Dan.... said:


> 4. Yes - but funded only by participants - Public schools should be overseen by the public sector and provided for through taxes. However, if the household chooses other means for providing for their children's education, they should become exempt by some means (e.g., by tax credits).



In 4. taxpayers pay for public school, but you are exempt if you have children in another schooling method. Taxpayers who don't have school aged children would still fund the school.


----------



## ChristianTrader (Jul 20, 2007)

SRoper said:


> I guess I've now officially lost any claim to be libertarian as I chose option 3. Contra the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, I don't believe there is a right to free and mandatory elementary education. However, if the state does not provide education for those who want it, I'm afraid we will have many more people who are functionally illiterate, and we will end up paying more in higher crime rates.



The problem is that the illiteracy rates are higher now then when there was not state mandated or state run schools.

There is also the problem of the entity that pays for something will eventually start to enforce how the money is spent. If you involve the state, then that is a bad recipe.

CT


----------



## SRoper (Jul 20, 2007)

ChristianTrader said:


> The problem is that the illiteracy rates are higher now then when there was [sic] not state mandated or state run schools.
> 
> There is also the problem of the entity that pays for something will eventually start to enforce how the money is spent. If you involve the state, then that is a bad recipe.
> 
> CT



Source? I'm curious how they estimated literacy rates before the 19C.

As to your second point, the taxpayers are the ones paying for it.


----------



## LadyFlynt (Jul 20, 2007)

SRoper said:


> If you read the full description it gives a different understanding than the short description implies.
> 
> 
> 
> In 4. taxpayers pay for public school, but you are exempt if you have children in another schooling method. Taxpayers who don't have school aged children would still fund the school.



Not true...I just received my tax letter stating what hubby and I have to each pay the school DIRECTLY.


----------



## ChristianTrader (Jul 20, 2007)

SRoper said:


> Source? I'm curious how they estimated literacy rates before the 19C.
> 
> As to your second point, the taxpayers are the ones paying for it.



Ill go second point first, If you want the taxpayers to pay for it, then cut the middle man out and make it private. Under your option, one would get a check from "The state of ___ or the federal government" to then go towards "schooling at ____". Under such a system, whom gets to determine where money is spent and who is qualified to receive it. Hint: I will not receive a phone call.

First point, thats a good question  I have heard it so much over the years that I assumed it was a common knowledge. I withdraw the statement for the time being.

CT


----------



## Dan.... (Jul 21, 2007)

SRoper said:


> If you read the full description it gives a different understanding than the short description implies.
> 
> 
> 
> In 4. taxpayers pay for public school, but you are exempt if you have children in another schooling method. Taxpayers who don't have school aged children would still fund the school.



Sorry, Yes, I was meaning the description in number 4 (in which case, yes, those who do not have children in school at all are still paying. This would be the "voucher" system). I unintendedly made the summary of number 4 in the poll misleading.
Sorry.


----------



## Dan.... (Jul 21, 2007)

LadyFlynt said:


> I just received my tax letter stating what hubby and I have to each pay the school DIRECTLY.



Isn't it sickening???!!!

All I have to do is look at my tax statement for a half second and can focus my eyes directly on the school district portion of the bill...*It's the only line on the bill that has that many digits!!!*


----------



## LadyFlynt (Jul 21, 2007)

Dan.... said:


> Isn't it sickening???!!!
> 
> All I have to do is look at my tax statement for a half second and can focus my eyes directly on the school district portion of the bill...*It's the only line on the bill that has that many digits!!!*


We're not even landowners...on top of the land, county, and local taxes, there is a head tax. $10 per adult over 18. Last year we only received one letter for me and none for my husband. They had me listed at being in my 60's, single, and mother to 1 child (my oldest).


----------

