Why do Republicans/Conservatives hate Public Education so much? (lawyers, controversial, supporters)

[Swampmonster]

Why do Republicans/Conservatives hate Public Education so much?

Because if EVERYONE in America had a decent education,the republican party would cease to exist is why.

[seamusnh]

Originally Posted by muleskinner

Why do Republicans/Conservatives hate Public Education so much?

Because if EVERYONE in America had a decent education,the republican party would cease to exist is why.

Check the exit polls from the most recent election. Obama's worst demographic was those with college education. He only got 50% of the "College education" vote compared to 63% of those that did not finish high school and 52% of those that did not finish high school.

United States presidential election, 2008 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[seamusnh]

Originally Posted by InformedConsent

Why do so many people see this as an either/or proposition? Why can't both public and private co-exist with both receiving public funding and families choosing the option they believe will best fit their children's needs, like they do in some of the European countries?

Exactly. It happens in Milwaukee. Started in 1990. 26% of the students opt for private schools with their vouchers. 74% are in public schools.
School voucher - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[TuborgP]

Originally Posted by seamusnh

Check the exit polls from the most recent election. Obama's worst demographic was those with college education. He only got 50% of the "College education" vote compared to 63% of those that did not finish high school and 52% of those that did not finish high school.

United States presidential election, 2008 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You may want to rewrite your post so your numbers make sense. You use two sets of numbers for those who did not finish high school. Even if he only got 50% of of the college vote he still out performed McCain when you divide the other 50% between the other candidtates. Perhaps the following can help you in your analysis.
A Vote Decided by Big Turnout And Big Discontent With GOP - washingtonpost.com
But Obama nearly tied with McCain among white voters who had some college education, a group Bush won in 2004 by 11 points. This suggested acceleration of a trend that has been underway for at least a decade, as more and more college-educated white suburban professionals have been moving toward the Democrats. This improved showing by Obama was particularly relevant in Virginia and Colorado, the only two of the 10 states in the country with the highest rates of college education that Kerry lost.

Obama's strong performance with college-educated whites helped explain how he was able to build a lead despite faring relatively poorly among white voters without a college education. He lost this group by 18 points -- a small improvement over Kerry's

[TuborgP]

Originally Posted by seamusnh

Exactly. It happens in Milwaukee. Started in 1990. 26% of the students opt for private schools with their vouchers. 74% are in public schools.
School voucher - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Are private schools funded with government funded vouchers really private or are they public independent schools. Ought not funding sources play the major role in determining public/private status?

[TuborgP]

Originally Posted by seamusnh

Check the exit polls from the most recent election. Obama's worst demographic was those with college education. He only got 50% of the "College education" vote compared to 63% of those that did not finish high school and 52% of those that did not finish high school.

United States presidential election, 2008 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

How can getting 50% be described as worse? Perhaps a better phrasing would be did not perform as well in. How ever his worse performing was White without high school diploma.

[TuborgP]

Originally Posted by InformedConsent

Why do so many people see this as an either/or proposition? Why can't both public and private co-exist with both receiving public funding and families choosing the option they believe will best fit their children's needs, like they do in some of the European countries?

If they exist with public funding they aren't private. They are just public schools with a different set of operating rules. Will tax payers pay the big bucks without a say in how the schools are run?

[TristansMommy]

Originally Posted by InformedConsent

Why do so many people see this as an either/or proposition? Why can't both public and private co-exist with both receiving public funding and families choosing the option they believe will best fit their children's needs, like they do in some of the European countries?

I don't know how you Can't see this...

First of all.. they already coexist.. there IS a choice. YOU can send your child to private school if you so like and can afford the tuition, that is if there is a private school near you that fits. By that , I mean that I would most likely NOT send my child to a Catholic School because I am a spiritualist and have problems with many aspects of the Catholic religion. A lot of private schools tend to be secular, not all, but I'd say most.

The issue is then not about private and public coexisting.. as they already do. The issue then becomes taking that households tax dollars paid toward PUBLIC education (education for ALL) and removing it from the public system and giving it to a PRIVATE institution instead because the parent "chose" private school.

Now.. I'm not SAYING with this example that Private is better.. but there is a PERCEPTION out there that Private schools are "the best" right? And every parent wants to give their child "The BEST".

Now.. let's use an anology here using peoples PERCEPION of public vs. Private. You have a KIA and you have a LEXUS and for your property taxes that you pay toward education you have your "choice" of taking the KIA or the LEXUS. LOL.. Well.. what do you think EVERYONE will choose..

They'll choose the LEXUS (obviously the Lexus represents peoples perception of private). BUT there are only so many Lexus's to give out. AND everyon'e tax contributions to the school system is NOT the same because everyone's property values are different. One family lives in a 2 million dollar home another in a 200K home. That home for 2 mill pays $20K in property taxes a year and the $200K pays lets say $5K a year.

So, when a private institution finds itself with more students wanting in then they are able to handle, what do you think will happen?

Well obviously the school, which is private and operates for profit, is going to WANT the children who's cut of the tax dollars they'll recieve more money for and so you find that those in the lower price range homes, therefore lower tax payment homes, are choosen LAST.

Remember.. they are a PRIVATE institution. Government CAN NOT dictate to a private institution WHO they let in or not nor how much they can charge for their services.

What is the public school system left with.. they are left with the lower taxed families that couldn't get into that private institution and recieve ONLY those lower taxed families money that follows that student. The public system then finds itself short of funds. Now.. yes,if the public school improves it will be able to "attract" more people, however, right from the outset the "public" school is left with a HUGE disadvantage because it is now operating without sufficient funds.

Let's keep some things in mind here. A public SD is REQUIRED to have facilities available for EVERY child within it's community. It MUST be able to have a classroom space for every child. A private institution is not. When an area is built up in a SD one of the factors considered in allowing it to be built is will there be enough school facility to facilitate children from those families that will move into the area. If not, then either the SD needs to be built larger to accomodate the growing area OR the building is not allowed. How do you dictate that requirement to PRIVATE facilities?

Also taxes per household are determined by it's base. If the SD looses some if it's more valuable property in it's tax pool, it puts more strain on coming up with the operating expenses of those that are left. That may then be an affordablity issue, since taxes are taken into consideration when calculating how much monthly "mortgage" payments someone can afford. Also, commercial property pays into a tax base for public education.. so how do you determine who gets those funds.. the private institution or the public?

There are way too many problems and issues with allowing public funds to be sent to private institutions.. this is only the abridged version of some of the pitfalls and issues. At the end of the day there is potential for a huge inequality in the education system, where only the "privledge" will end up with an education and many will fall to the wayside.

Rather.. the TRUE solution to the problem of education is the need to overhaul and update our curriculums and teaching methods and figure out ways within the public system to deal with children that are not performing. ANd yes, public schools need efficiency improvements and tenure needs to be done away with (and I would say Unions too..as they are part of the problem with LI schools and high taxes). But these things CAN all be done if we all start focusing on improving public education rather than getting rid of of it all together.

[InformedConsent]

Originally Posted by TuborgP

If they exist with public funding they aren't private. They are just public schools with a different set of operating rules. Will tax payers pay the big bucks without a say in how the schools are run?

Typically, the way it works overseas is if a private school's students are passing the required government tests, the private school continues to receive public funding but is otherwise left alone. Meeting the minimum acceptable standard is all that is necessary to receive public funding. Private schools can use whichever curriculum and methodology they prefer as long as their students are meeting standards.

[Frank_Carbonni]

Originally Posted by mackinac81

Now I'm not talking about all Republicans. But ever since I got my teaching degree, I noticed that conservatives, in general have a much more hostile attitude toward public ed. than liberals. My Democrat friends have always encouraged me in my career choice, while some conservative friends act like "well...whatever floats your boat man...". One friend even tried to get me to switch careers because public schools were so "anti-God". I got the impression that you can't be a true conservative and agree with universal public education. I really believe that what I'm doing is very beneficial to society.

Now I know public schools have problems, and there needs to be reform, but why are so many conservatives wanting to throw the baby out with the bathwater?

Well, most conservatives and even many libertarians (myself included) don't have a problem with public education per se and would abolish it even if given the power to do so, but rather how wasteful and unsuccessful it is.

The US spends more per student than most nations on Earth. In fact, the only nation I am aware of that spends more on education per primary and secondary student is Switzerland. Yet most other First World nations outperform the US on tests.

Not only are test scores lower, but the money isn't even all that well spent. Even many schools in middle-class neighborhoods still have problems with funding repairs, after-school programs, building additions to school builds, etc.

And to top it all off, American teachers aren't the highest paid in the world (although they are pretty high on the list) and they don't have a low pupil to teacher ratio. Where is all the money going? It's not all going to the teachers, it's not going to building repairs, most after-class programs and activities are under-funded, and so on.