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.
And what would our country be like without it? All those who couldn't afford private schools during the past 2 centuries in this country would have been illiterate. The public system may not be perfect but it does insure education for all.
This post is the perfect example of why the education budget is being cut. There is an ideology that abhors public education and will do everything possible to ruin it.
Sadly, you are right. If it were just some kid-hating curmudgeon on City Data that would be one thing. But, there is a pervasive attitude in the Arizona legislature that publicly supported education at every level from K through graduate programs is an abomination.
Finger Laker and Markas: I'm actually in favor of education ... more of it, in fact. My disagreement is forcing taxpayers to subsidize PUBLIC schools that have failed in many aspects, and do not benefit everyone. Under the concept of privatization, families would hold the burden of paying for education themselves ... but that would mean they would simply have to trim the fat from their budgets (just like the state is having to trim the fat from its budget now). That means no more fancy plasma TVs, cell phones for every family member, computers, ipods, blackberrys, or SUVs. As an example: I went to a private school in my youth, and my family wasn't wealthy by any means. We simply did without the extra "perks".
However, if schools were privatized, the government's budget would be excessively trimmed, and that would mean that everyone (including families with children) would receive an enormous tax relief by not having to fund education. Those of us who are homeowners but childless are currently burdened with the annual property taxes, of which nearly 70% are put into public schools which I do not use. If you want to keep the system public, the alternative would be to make those with kids in school pay the taxes, and those without kids in the system could pay into it voluntarily if they so choose.
Look at how much of the state's budget is comprised of public education ... yet, all we hear is how poor the schools are, and how Arizona is always at or near the bottom in practically everything concerning education. Where is all the money going??? With this state's deficit being one of the worst in the entire country, something has to be trimmed or slashed. I'm glad we have a Legislature and a new Governor who seem to be serious about reducing the size of gov't. Education doesn't need to be publicly funded in order to be successful. In fact, study after study has shown that the more educated & successful people graduate from PRIVATE institutions.
you do use the public schools though - by having an educated populace, by training talent that one day can keep your business afloat, by attracting people to the metro
the education system here is bad and it shows with a lack of corporate HQs and high skill companies opening up large operations - they can import talent, but it's hard to find the home grown
private institutions are often costly - the people who can afford to go there are often from families that are more well to do and support education in the household (it's obviously something they value which is why they pay for it)
just like public districts in wealthier areas do better than those in poor areas
also, the break in property taxes isn't going to help the overwhelming number of families that aren't living in extravagence ...... they're renting property, working as much as they can and doing all they can do to get by
also no one out here is burdened by property taxes - they are very low when you look at the national averages
Finger Laker and Markas: I'm actually in favor of education ... more of it, in fact. My disagreement is forcing taxpayers to subsidize PUBLIC schools that have failed in many aspects, and do not benefit everyone. Under the concept of privatization, families would hold the burden of paying for education themselves ... but that would mean they would simply have to trim the fat from their budgets (just like the state is having to trim the fat from its budget now). That means no more fancy plasma TVs, cell phones for every family member, computers, ipods, blackberrys, or SUVs. As an example: I went to a private school in my youth, and my family wasn't wealthy by any means. We simply did without the extra "perks".
However, if schools were privatized, the government's budget would be excessively trimmed, and that would mean that everyone (including families with children) would receive an enormous tax relief by not having to fund education. Those of us who are homeowners but childless are currently burdened with the annual property taxes, of which nearly 70% are put into public schools which I do not use. If you want to keep the system public, the alternative would be to make those with kids in school pay the taxes, and those without kids in the system could pay into it voluntarily if they so choose.
Look at how much of the state's budget is comprised of public education ... yet, all we hear is how poor the schools are, and how Arizona is always at or near the bottom in practically everything concerning education. Where is all the money going??? With this state's deficit being one of the worst in the entire country, something has to be trimmed or slashed. I'm glad we have a Legislature and a new Governor who seem to be serious about reducing the size of gov't. Education doesn't need to be publicly funded in order to be successful. In fact, study after study has shown that the more educated & successful people graduate from PRIVATE institutions.
I am a teacher and I have students in my classroom who come from families that are struggling just to simply put food on the table, pay the rent, and keep the lights turned on. I actually had one homeless child in my classroom. Many students are coming from single parent homes whose families are struggling for survival. I have students whose parents can not afford basic dental and medical care for their child. I have many children who can not afford clothes and shoes. I have actually had children in my class who are living in houses with dirt floors. I don't think many of my students would be educated if they were forced to pay for private education because their families simply can't "trim the fat from their budgets." Arizona must put more funding into education because I have witnessed many of Arizona's children living in Third World type conditions. Why must we raise up another generation to live in these conditions?
Finger Laker and Markas: I'm actually in favor of education ... more of it, in fact. My disagreement is forcing taxpayers to subsidize PUBLIC schools that have failed in many aspects, and do not benefit everyone. Under the concept of privatization, families would hold the burden of paying for education themselves ... but that would mean they would simply have to trim the fat from their budgets (just like the state is having to trim the fat from its budget now). That means no more fancy plasma TVs, cell phones for every family member, computers, ipods, blackberrys, or SUVs. As an example: I went to a private school in my youth, and my family wasn't wealthy by any means. We simply did without the extra "perks".
However, if schools were privatized, the government's budget would be excessively trimmed, and that would mean that everyone (including families with children) would receive an enormous tax relief by not having to fund education. Those of us who are homeowners but childless are currently burdened with the annual property taxes, of which nearly 70% are put into public schools which I do not use. If you want to keep the system public, the alternative would be to make those with kids in school pay the taxes, and those without kids in the system could pay into it voluntarily if they so choose.
Look at how much of the state's budget is comprised of public education ... yet, all we hear is how poor the schools are, and how Arizona is always at or near the bottom in practically everything concerning education. Where is all the money going??? With this state's deficit being one of the worst in the entire country, something has to be trimmed or slashed. I'm glad we have a Legislature and a new Governor who seem to be serious about reducing the size of gov't. Education doesn't need to be publicly funded in order to be successful. In fact, study after study has shown that the more educated & successful people graduate from PRIVATE institutions.
So Arizona, like Mexico, will have education for children with sufficient means and desire, while the other 50-75% will be roaming the streets, maybe some learning how to be handy. I look around and see that, in AZ especially, working parents need their kids in school, even if it is only daycare to them. It would be very bad if your suggestion was imposed. Unfortunately, AZ is, and maybe has been for 80 years, 1/2 America and 1/2 Mexico (Once was all Mexico).
I completely disagree with most of that - there is a public benefit to education and there should be some level of public subsidy to it ....... if left fully private families wouldn't be able to afford to educate their kids, which would pretty much leave generations trapped into no hope, no education, no advancement .... that would kill communities
there should be budget trimming - all day K is pretty much subsidized day care and I'm fine with cutting that, schools need to look at how they are spending money - however, the axe that is being wielded right now is way too large
i'm not a bleeding heart by any means, but education is so important ..... i think there should definitely be reform to the system (one thing I'd like is to offer more vocational training to HS kids who know the college/white collar route just isn't their deal)
there should also be more transparency not only in how the districts spend their money, but also how the state allocates their budget
One thing I can see triming would be sports. Let the parents of those who choose to play pay for all expenses. I am already doing that for my daughter who plays club basketball. Increase funds for the academic portion of going to school so we can escape being 49th all the time in dollars per pupil spent.
I am a teacher and I have students in my classroom who come from families that are struggling just to simply put food on the table, pay the rent, and keep the lights turned on. I actually had one homeless child in my classroom. Many students are coming from single parent homes whose families are struggling for survival. I have students whose parents can not afford basic dental and medical care for their child. I have many children who can not afford clothes and shoes. I have actually had children in my class who are living in houses with dirt floors. I don't think many of my students would be educated if they were forced to pay for private education because their families simply can't "trim the fat from their budgets." Arizona must put more funding into education because I have witnessed many of Arizona's children living in Third World type conditions. Why must we raise up another generation to live in these conditions?
First of all, doesn't it make you wonder why the ones who are the most down & out, and can least afford kids are the ones who are having the most kids??? I really hate to sound cold hearted because I realize the impoverished conditions are not the children's fault ... but why should society be burdened with the cost of raising & educating kids whose parents (better known as breeders) are too stupid and/or lazy to use contraception?
I understand there are circumstances beyond some people's control ... but that doesn't mean government/taxpayers should be responsible for everyone else. As an example, there are many pets that are abandoned, abused, neglected, or come from homes where impoverished conditions occur. You'll notice that very little taxpayer money is used to rescue & care for all the animals in dire circumstances. Why? Because individuals & private charities chip in and do the job. That's exactly what can & should be done for the children who are in dire circumstances. The least effective way to offer help to someone in need is to force the public to contribute, and put the government in charge.
First of all, doesn't it make you wonder why the ones who are the most down & out, and can least afford kids are the ones who are having the most kids??? I really hate to sound cold hearted because I realize the impoverished conditions are not the children's fault ... but why should society be burdened with the cost of raising & educating kids whose parents (better known as breeders) are too stupid and/or lazy to use contraception?
I understand there are circumstances beyond some people's control ... but that doesn't mean government/taxpayers should be responsible for everyone else. As an example, there are many pets that are abandoned, abused, neglected, or come from homes where impoverished conditions occur. You'll notice that very little taxpayer money is used to rescue & care for all the animals in dire circumstances. Why? Because individuals & private charities chip in and do the job. That's exactly what can & should be done for the children who are in dire circumstances. The least effective way to offer help to someone in need is to force the public to contribute, and put the government in charge.
Most of my students do not come from large families. Some are from single mothers who were not in anyway "stupid." My student who was homeless last year was from a single parent family. His dad all of sudden decided to walk out on them. This left his mother with the burden of taking care of him. She was forced to take on two jobs just to make ends meet. Oh, and by the way he was an only child. Most of my students who are living in near Third World circumstances are NOT from large families but are from single parents who struggling to support them.
As far as individuals and private charities supporting schools I don't see too many people who are willing to do that. Schools need government funds because there are just simply too many "kid haters" who think children are a waste of money. If my students were forced to pay for their education, they would be roaming the streets, turning to gang life, and eventually end up in jail. Well, that means someone would have to spend money to build more jail cells. If we don't support our schools, our tax dollars are going to go some where. We need to choose between the schools or prisons. Oh and by the way there was actually a study that linked low third grade reading test scores and future criminal activity. If teachers don't have the funds to buy materials needed to teach appropriately, then all of us are going to see a society with more crime.
Most of my students do not come from large families. Some are from single mothers who were not in anyway "stupid." My student who was homeless last year was from a single parent family. His dad all of sudden decided to walk out on them. This left his mother with the burden of taking care of him. She was forced to take on two jobs just to make ends meet. Oh, and by the way he was an only child. Most of my students who are living in near Third World circumstances are NOT from large families but are from single parents who struggling to support them.
And I clearly stated that I completely understand about unfortunate situations arising like the one you described. I was lucky enough to come from a stable home (even though we weren't well off by any means) ... but I did go to a private school where children from all walks of life attended. Private schools are open to kids from less than fortunate backgrounds, and I knew single/divorced mothers who sent their kids to private institutions. What matters more is not how poor or impoverished the household is ... but how the money that they have is BUDGETED.
Quote:
Originally Posted by bluebelt1234
As far as individuals and private charities supporting schools I don't see too many people who are willing to do that. Schools need government funds because there are just simply too many "kid haters" who think children are a waste of money.
Sorry, but that is completely false. You obviously don't know what goes on in the charitable sector, or in corporations for that matter. The company I work for has frequent charitable drives to help children in need: Adopt a Family, backpacks/supplies for students, March of Dimes, Toys for Tots, etc. Those events always receive an overwhelming amount of donations & volunteers, even during the economic slumps.
Quote:
Originally Posted by bluebelt1234
If my students were forced to pay for their education, they would be roaming the streets, turning to gang life, and eventually end up in jail.
That's a fear based statement, typical of the Chicken Littles who blow things out of proportion. IF (and this is a huge IF) privatization would result in kids roaming the streets & turning to a life of crime, that would be stopped immediately by the many charitable groups, individuals, and companies which would find a way to pay for the needy children's school tuition.
Quote:
Originally Posted by bluebelt1234
Well, that means someone would have to spend money to build more jail cells. If we don't support our schools, our tax dollars are going to go some where. We need to choose between the schools or prisons.
Well, guess what? Currently, we're paying for schools AND prisons. Regardless of what happens with the schools, there will always be the criminal element of society that can't be rehabilitated. Maybe you should examine how much of your tax dollars are thrown into the public schools. The amount of money spent on public education is ALARMING ... yet, they are still substandard in comparison to private education.
Quote:
Originally Posted by bluebelt1234
Oh and by the way there was actually a study that linked low third grade reading test scores and future criminal activity. If teachers don't have the funds to buy materials needed to teach appropriately, then all of us are going to see a society with more crime.
Government doesn't have to be involved in subsidizing something in order for it to work properly. In fact, the private, capitalist system is MUCH more effective & efficient. Unforutuately, there will always be people that go without, no matter how much public or private funding is allocated. Look at health care, which is a privatized system. Some people don't have health insurance ... but there isn't a national crisis like some would believe. Most Americans have health insurance, and most are completely satisified with their providers.
In the long run, I strongly believe privatization would work even better for everyone than the current public system because it would allow schools to work as businesses, and COMPETE for better results. Also, you as a teacher would have more opportunity for promotions & better pay. Statistically, people who work in the private sector generally receive higher salaries than those in the public sector.
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.
