Stossel's views on education

The article contains some interesting statistics and anecdotes.

 

It is an interesting article.

How does a society stop a snowball rolling down a hill? How can individuals of a society change a broken public school system? This is a rhetorical question. I do know at least one way to fix it, but I don't think it will every happen.

 

It has always amazed me that our government will ignore all the countries whose education systems give parents choices and are doing much better than us. Why cling to a system that is clearly not working?

 

According to the article, it costs the government $11,000 per year to educate a student in public school. We paid less than that to send our children to a private Christian high school. And what about giving homeschooling parents a tax credit for this amount?

 

The rural Ohio school district we are in spends between $6000 and $7000 a year per "normal" students. It spend twice that for special needs students. But the school district was considered in economic and educational failure as of two years ago. They were placed on the warning list for schools failing to meet certain standards. (I'm not sure what its called.) I know personally of several incidents where children was placed in the special needs in order for the school to be paid more money. When the parents went to the school and complained loudly the children where returned to regular classes.
We don't spend anywhere near $12000 a year to educate ds. And while a tax credit would be nice, I'm afraid that would require proving something about ds to the government in order to get the tax credit. I don't want the government or our looser school district involved in his education.
Marty

 

these numbers astound me. I wonder how long it will take for the gov't to see this as a lost cause.

 

I also would be very concerned about having the government give homeschoolers a tax credit because the government would most likely want to get involved in my homeschooling. I don't want to be accountable to the government. I don't want the government telling me what to do and how to do it.

 

Agreed!

 

The government wouldn't need to get involved at all. If I send something through the USPS, I pay the government a fee (by buying stamps); if I send the same item via FedEx, I pay a private company a fee; if I drive to the destination myself to deliver the item, I pay for gas and my time. The only difference with schools is that money is taken from me forcibly to pay for public schools. When I don't send my children to public school, I simply want my money back. That's really what I mean by tax credit: The government (actually, the local authority) took my money on the assumption I was paying for a service; since I'm not, I want the money back.

 

I would love to be able to only pay the taxes for schools if we were using them!!

 

I'm not sure how other states collect school taxes so I can only speak about Ohio. Here we pay school tax through our property taxes. Our property is assessed at a certain value and taxes are paid accordingly. A portion of that tax goes to the school district of residence. Because property tax is considered a local tax the state doesn't offer a refund. Also if a person rents they don't pay property tax per se. The owner of the rental property pays the property tax directly even though he/she can pass the cost onto the renter. This is why in Ohio some district are poorer than others, simply because population is not as dense. There have been court cases over the "unfair" tax support of poorer districts. A centralized tax collect mechanism was suggested.
Since renters already escape property tax here, I doubt seriously homeschoolers would be given the same advantage. And we don't get a refund or credit on property tax, which was one of the reasons Ohio chose that mechanism.
Marty

 

It's pretty much the same here, Marty, and the logic is all messed up. The authorities make clear how much of the tax goes toward education, yet the only people who don't pay the tax are those who rent.

Own a home with children in public school: pay the tax. => Correct
Own a home with children not in public school: pay the tax. => Why?
Rent a home with children in public school: pay no tax. => Why?
Rent a home with children not in public school: pay no tax: => Correct.

And it gets worse. It used to be, when we were homeschooling, that summer classes were free to children in public school (whether their parents own or rent), yet homeschooled children had to pay a significant sum to participate (whether their parents own or rent). In other words, homeschooling parents who own a home must pay whereas public school parents who own a home don't have to pay.

 

I don't have a problem paying taxes for schools even if I am not using them...although I do think we should have a voucher program so as to increase competition. I get that it is in societies best intrest to educate ALL our kids...ESPECIALLY the ones whos parents won't take responsability to do it themselves. BUT currently we are not doing well by those kids.
Even if I don't have kids, I pay taxes for the schools...if I don't ever have a fire, I still pay for the firemen...etc.
BUT I sure think I could do a lot more for 11K than the public schools do...hell, give me half.

 

I've thought about the article for a few hours now. The thing is, I don't think the blame lays squarely on the shoulders of government/teachers. The reason poor/rich parents pay for private school is because they care and are involved in their children's education. Most parents are going to make sure their children are doing their homework, not disrupting class, etc. (not 100% of parents of course) Why throw away good money if, as a parent, you don't care.

My son went a ps Kindergarten through 2nd grade because the public school system was excellent. High scores, caring teachers, etc. It was that way partly because the parents were very involved and when they weren't happy with something, the teachers, principals, administrators, etc heard about it and were held accountable by the parents. People moved to this particular area specifically for the ps system.

I am not sure competition would solve all the problems. Perhaps parents with failing kids should be held accountable...like have to pay extra money to the school system or the child's teacher if they aren't sending their kids to school fed, clean, dressed properly, homework complete because they think the school should raise their children for them. Nanny services cost extra and parents should pay. Rather than always holding the teachers and school accountable for failing, parents should be held accountable. I bet that would result in some real change...

 

The way I see it the problem came when school became a right instead of a privelege, not that everyone shouldn't get an education it just changed attitudes. Before public education only the rich and the motivated got an education. The rich were normally on their children to learn (because they are spending the money) and the self learners worked for it.

Many kids today do not work for it and they do not see the value in it. Families who come from generations of ps often fall into the pitfall well the ps has to teach the kids and the family slowly moves away from being intwined with education. Families who have sent their kids to private schools are usually more involved since there is a sacrifice of some type.

I really think the only way to fix it is to not have everything equal (which is what many districts try and do), go back to a tracking system(college prep, general ed, vocational) where kids who can not make it in college prep are not there. If it is something they really want they will work for it if not then provide a skill for them to use otherwise. Money will not solve it only a fundamental attitude change on the part of the kids and their families will do it. Just think Oprah chose to build her school in South Africa and not in the US because in South Africa the girls know the value of an education and will appreciate it.

Ok that is my little rant on some problems with the ps system

 

:shock: I am very surprised by this line of thought.

First of all, those who pay rent are not paying property tax directly, but anyone who owns rental property makes sure that the rent will pay enough to cover the property taxes for the rental property so the renter is paying the tax, just not in his own name. It is kind of like corporate taxes are hidden the cost of the goods.

Second, there are plenty of people who have not had children and never will have children who pay for schools, what about them? Should we be giving them tax credits/breaks/deductions? What about the people whose children are grown and they will not be having any more children, or young adults who have not yet had any children? Just where do we draw the line to support a default education, which may be the only opportunity for many children?

 

I agree. Those who pay rent do pay taxes. It is included in their rent. They just do not pay it directly to the city.

I think the answer to the education problem is choice. Give parents a choice. Let the government money be attached to the child instead of the district.

 

I often have that effect.

But the point is that whether I own a home, own a mobile home, rent a home, or sleep on the streets, it's irrelevant to the cost of my children's education. Somehow, over time, the authorities have managed to create the link. I pay water charges based on how much water I use. The same is true for natural gas and for electricity. The size of my home, and whether I own or rent it, does not factor into the equation. Why does it for education?

You're quite right. Why should a couple with no children pay to educate my children? Why should someone with a single child subsidize the cost of educating children in a family of 10?

The cost issue is important. In business, we keep track of all income and expenses so we can determine profitable versus unprofitable product lines, for example. That way, we can put money to use where it will have the most effect and not waste it on unwanted or low value tasks. Shouldn't it be the same with education? Right now, money comes from property taxes from everyone. Money just pours into the public coffers, and bureaucrats know how to spend/waste it. Much better, in my opinion, to make parents pay for their child's education: Either $11,000 a year for a public education, about the same for a private education, or much less by schooling at home.

Where would the parents find this money? Through reduced property tax, reduced local sales tax, reduced income taxes, and so on. Plus, when people spend their own money, they tend to take the time needed to ensure it's well spent. When money is taken in the form of taxes, we lose that sense of ownership and responsibility. Education would improve no end if parents thought they were spending their own money.

 

Education would improve if parents actually did spend their own money, for the people who could afford it, that is.

I came from a very poor family...so I would not have been educated at all, I suppose.

If we only paid taxes for what we personally use, life would be very different. Imagine...all roads as toll roads. Hmmm, I just don't think that works well.