Public education, yes or no?

Should there be public schools?

  • Yes - all children should be required to attend.

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Yes - funded by local, state and federal taxes.

    Votes: 3 5.3%
  • Yes -but only funded by local and/or state taxes.

    Votes: 5 8.8%
  • Yes - but funded only by participants

    Votes: 9 15.8%
  • No - education is private sector, no government oversight

    Votes: 34 59.6%
  • No -same as above option, but w/government oversight

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • No - homeschooling is the only option.

    Votes: 5 8.8%
  • Other, please expound.

    Votes: 1 1.8%

  • Total voters
    57
Status
Not open for further replies.

Dan....

Puritan Board Sophomore
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.
 
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.
 
Last edited:
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
 
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 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.
 
#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.
 
#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.
 
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.
 
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.

:agree:

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

:think:

Anyone here read the Communist Manifesto? :detective:
 
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.
 
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?
 
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.
 
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.
 
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. :2cents:
 
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?
 
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.
 
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)
 
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?
 
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?
 
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..
 
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?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top