Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I'm a parent so I'm sure my comment will be dismissed, but there are real tangible benefits gained by the whole for education. One of the most noticeable is that the vast majority of towns with good school systems also enjoy higher property values, quicker turnover in housing, lower crime, etc.
I do happen to believe that educating children is the "villages" responsibility. I'm sure those who feel differently will never be swayed by arguments so I'll leave it at that.
i think you're right. maybe it's just state. maybe local. maybe federal. but it's definitely a group effort in my opinion.
i believe that the residents in those expensive homes are more responsible for the quality of the school system than the school's administration. my town has a highly ranked school system and im sure the teacher's think they must be so wonderful, but i think it has more to do with the fact that the people who pay 700k+ for their homes value education and raise good kids.
i dont think the debate is whether or not education benefits society. its more along the lines of, if education benefits society should society spread its expense to everyone and have the government operate it.
that may be, but there are communities with lower property values that have good schools too.
is your community's school good because homes are 700k? was it not good 20 years ago? chicken or egg i guess.
very generous of your parents to pay for your education twice.
they did pay for my education at private school because of the school district we lived in. We could have moved to a better school district, but that would be complicated as well, and there weren't a ton of options. But I also worked for money (granted not a ton) since i was 13 years old. So I did my part too. I saved taxpayers money by not going to a public school as well.
i only think the expense should be shared when these things cant be easily assigned to the users (like the military). in the case of education, its pretty easy to see who is using the system. goes back to my food example. im sure we agree that the greater good is served by everyone eating food but i dont think we would agree that the cost of everyones food should be spread among everyone and food delivery managed by the government.
and yet, many aspects of our food supply is managed by the government.
Quote:
Originally Posted by NJGOAT
I can see your argument. I just don't agree that education falls under something that should be user based. Education does benefit the society at large, so the cost should be shared.
The food example is a bit extreme, but I suppose in a way I do think it is societies job to educate a child, but it isn't necessarily societies job to feed them.
i think this is largely what i believe as well. well said!
and yet, many aspects of our food supply is managed by the government.
its funny that you somehow credit government with their unnecessary intrusion into the private sector and you believe that we couldnt do it without them.
i think that i should at least have the right to take that money back from my property taxes that goes to public school and apply it to private school if i choose to send my child to a private school.
i like the concept of school vouchers, but it would have to be carefully implemented. in areas where similar programs have been tried, all that happens is the children whose parents care or have the means to get them to the "better" schools get to go, and the children who have parents who don't have the means (financially or in time resources) to get them to the better schools get left behind.
so, while the "worse" schools will eventually fail, in theory, while it's happening, children get abondoned for no fault of their own.
education reform needs to happen in the early years. programs like affirmative action which try to correct issues at the college entry or even job entry levels do not help at all.
so while school choice sounds like a splendid idea, the kinks still need to be worked out before i'd be on board with it.
its funny that you somehow credit government with their unnecessary intrusion into the private sector and you believe that we couldnt do it without them.
the fact that i can largely eat an egg, a steak, a burger, and lettuce without worrying about dying makes me think that they are doing a pretty good job. and if left to the private sector, i'm 100% confident that we wouldn't have the same level of comfort before biting into that burger.
the fact that i can largely eat an egg, a steak, a burger, and lettuce without worrying about dying makes me think that they are doing a pretty good job. and if left to the private sector, i'm 100% confident that we wouldn't have the same level of comfort before biting into that burger.
regulation/fines/lawsuits/criminal prosecution is a regulatory position which is fine. i do believe in a certain level of regulation. the actual production and delivery of food is the bigger piece and the less government is involved the better.
i like the concept of school vouchers, but it would have to be carefully implemented. in areas where similar programs have been tried, all that happens is the children whose parents care or have the means to get them to the "better" schools get to go, and the children who have parents who don't have the means (financially or in time resources) to get them to the better schools get left behind.
so, while the "worse" schools will eventually fail, in theory, while it's happening, children get abondoned for no fault of their own.
education reform needs to happen in the early years. programs like affirmative action which try to correct issues at the college entry or even job entry levels do not help at all.
so while school choice sounds like a splendid idea, the kinks still need to be worked out before i'd be on board with it.
id like the private schools to have equal access to the public's money as the private schools. real choice and real accountability. id also like for there to be incentive to keep costs down. maybe where each family can choose a school out of their allotted amount of money, and they get to keep what isnt spent (i understand there are a million complications, im just throwing out some kind of direction id like to see things move).
wont happen though.
i havent done too much research on this area, but when i listen to the radio and they talk of "charter schools" it always seems to be in places where no school will really be successful.
Last edited by CaptainNJ; 02-10-2011 at 12:37 PM..
regulation/fines/lawsuits/criminal prosecution is a regulatory position which is fine. i do believe in a certain level of regulation. the actual production and delivery of food is the bigger piece and the less government is involved the better.
but the rules guiding production and delivery are pretty involved. i would argue they are too involved. it's getting more and more difficult for a small farm or producer to even remain in business with all the things they need to do to comply now. people should be concerned about food, but it's reaching paranoia which is bad. delicate balance for sure.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
