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.
No, they are not. Public libraries in the US are a blessing & a public resource. But typically, they are paid for on the same basis as public schools K-12, by taxation - usually a portion of property taxes.
Public libraries are free in the sense that there is no charge to the user to borrow books & other media - but there are costs, budgets, materials to buy, personnel & so on. As a society, we (the US) have decided that the benefits to having public libraries outweigh the costs.
They are free to the poor.
Of course they are not free to the taxpayers, aka, the rich.
Also, the “We” means “at gunpoint.” If we truly decide, libraries would be funded entirely by charity.
Last edited by lifeexplorer; 11-28-2017 at 07:14 PM..
Says who. We paid for our kids college education because that's what you do as a parent. Don't have kids if you don't want to properly educate them.
Says who for which part?
You're preaching to the choir: I'm paying/have paid for for my kids private pre-K through 12th grade education, as well as my oldest's college education - currently. As I will for my younger two, when they go off to college.
Last edited by Informed Info; 11-28-2017 at 08:05 PM..
Totally agree. For those children lost on the parents lottery, the state should take over and put them in foster care since their own parents obviously are endangering the children.
Let’s do it and I am happy to pay taxes for it.
Hm. Well, it may come to that for cases that are extreme to the point that the child is in mortal danger while with his or her parent(s), & the parent(s) are the cause of the danger. But all levels of government are loathe to remove children from their parent(s) - it's a last resort & even then may be conditional & intended to be temporary - pending evaluation of the parent(s) fitness for raising the child.
If the parent(s) are found unfit, the court may attempt to place the child with relatives - assuming that the relatives are interested & capable. If not, the child may pass into the custody of the state - which may be a more secure setting for the child physically. But emotionally, most children do better in a family with natural bonds of affection.
I would like to challenge the "equal opportunity" motif. Liberals believe it's not "socially just" for wealthy areas to have better funded and overall better quality schools than poorer areas. But, don't wealthy areas pay more in taxes? Why is unfair to get what you pay for? Heck, if I am able to afford to live in whatever neighborhood Obama lives in, you bet I'm going to demand good schools! Do liberals really believe that Bill Gates should be forced to send his kids to crappy schools just so things can be "more equal"? Or if we try to make every school the same, what will be the incentive for any school to be decent? Won't rich people just flock to private schools or homeschooling? Would the next step be to make homeschooling illegal so no one has an "unfair aadvantag"? Just wondering how far we should take this equality stuff. It seems like the book Animal Farm.
I totally agree. The "better school districts" have parents that demand that their children do their homework and attend classes. Despite one of my sons being on the high functioning end of the autistic spectrum our children had nearly perfect attendance K-12 and in college still have perfect attendance.
We support education. We support our schools. Too ducking bad for the people who don't.
So the youngest is about 16 years old, they all attended Lakeside School in Seattle (co-ed, grades 5-12). Phoebe is still there, the older two graduated from Lakeside.
Just out of security concerns, if nothing else, I would have assumed that the children always attended a private school with adequate security & excellent academics.
Additionally, Gates himself is a Lakeside alum, so it seems natural to me that he'd want his kids to enjoy the same.
I would like to challenge the "equal opportunity" motif. Liberals believe it's not "socially just" for wealthy areas to have better funded and overall better quality schools than poorer areas. But, don't wealthy areas pay more in taxes? Why is unfair to get what you pay for? Heck, if I am able to afford to live in whatever neighborhood Obama lives in, you bet I'm going to demand good schools! Do liberals really believe that Bill Gates should be forced to send his kids to crappy schools just so things can be "more equal"? Or if we try to make every school the same, what will be the incentive for any school to be decent? Won't rich people just flock to private schools or homeschooling? Would the next step be to make homeschooling illegal so no one has an "unfair aadvantag"? Just wondering how far we should take this equality stuff. It seems like the book Animal Farm.
I am not sure if you have this backwards or not but here goes. It isn't that the rich go to the best public schools. It is that they get more access to schools including private schooling. Then you have people that were lucky enough to be enrolled in private school get scholarships (which they often don't need) or vouchers (again that they don't need but unlike scholarships come from public funds) say they shouldn't pay for school taxes. Talk about having your cake and eating it too...
First, if ALL kids were made to go to public schools, there would be much more money spent on them.
Second, I don't see how your question is relevant to the discussion, as your kids' high school WAS one of the top ranked. In other words, how does that relate to the basic question as to what wold happen if all schools were "leveled".
Third, I don't see what URMs have to do the the general discussion of this subject unless you get into the question of racism. If everyone truly was given an equal chance in everything, I think the racial aspects of unfair educational opportunities would simply go away. (However, I do not pretend that everyone being given an equal chance will ever happen, although I hope I am wrong.)
As to your final point, though, I do agree with that absolutely!
You keep saying if all kids went to public schools there would be much more money spent on them. What are you basing this on? It would burden the system so much I think they'd be spending less money on students and education.
My kids went to a great public high school. You want an even playing field. There will never be an even playing field until all parents are equal in their responsibilities. Work on that issue - it's the only one that will ever result in change.
And the URM's have to do with your comment that college admissions should be based on merit and not on who has wealthy parents. If you want merit-based admissions that means no more lowering of standards for URM's. It has everything to do with the issue that you brought up.
This is how Finland does it, private schools are banned, and they pay their teachers as much as we pay doctors here, and they have one of the best education systems in the world
Yes, if only we could cherry-pick and adopt best practices from each country. Alas, that doesn't work.
All I am saying is information is readily available to the children. Library is just an example. If they truly want to learn and their parents are responsible, they don’t need schools. In fact, plenty of people are home schooled.
Your whole point of needing more money for schools collapses when so many people are home schooled.
"Homeschooling in the United Statesconstitutes the education of about 3.4% of U.S. students (approximately 2 million students).[1] In the United States, the Supreme Court has ruled that parents have a fundamental right to direct the education of their children.[2] The right to homeschool is not frequently questioned in court. But, the amount of state regulation and help that can or should be expected continues to be subject to legal debate.
Again, public libraries are funded the same way most public schools K-12 are funded - through property taxes. None of that is free, & if public school funding is reduced, public library funding can't be far behind.
The number of students who are home schooled is still quite small, & home schooling depends on someone being home to conduct class. Which means that family income is a large factor in who is home schooled. & as the students progress from elementary to middle school to high school-level curriculum/work, the expertise required to impart a good education becomes harder & harder to master. States are required to set standards for public education, & home schooling must also meet those standards, TMK.
It doesn't matter how much you pay in taxes or how much "education" you receive, if you're going to remain as ignorant as many of your comments seem to indicate.
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.
States are loathe to break up families
