The Daily Crime has an interesting community argument going on about taxes and school choice.
Some are positing that tax dollars paid by the parents should follow the child to the school he attends. Others say they should not have to pay tax dollars for a school system they don't use. Both positions are just plain freaking wrong. Look, let's go back to our first year of philosophy.... uh, better make that the first semester of philosophy, and discuss Plato's "Crito" where he outline the concept of the social contract. For those that slept through this part of the class, a quick review may be in order..... In essence, a social contract is an implicit or explicit agreement between an individual and the society in which he lives that holds that for society to be mutually beneficial to the group as a whole, as well as the individual, each party provides something to the group and demands something from the group.
The extrapolation of that idea means that the individual gains something from his association with the society. So, you're born into the society and a protected by the rules and laws of that society because you are a citizen of the nation and state where you were born and a member of society that places value on human life and justice.
And in order to underpin those rules and laws there has to be an infrastructure of support for the the common good. That's what taxes pay for, and for someone to suggest that the tax monies used to pay for public schools should go to a private school is ridiculous. An individual's tax dollars do not pay for their child's education, any more than they pay for their individual police and fire protection, or any other of the countless services that taxes pay for. In fact it is everyone's taxes that pay for those services. Tax monies are to the common good, and even though an individual may not use of all the services available to them, it does not mean they don't have to pay for them. ... If that argument had validity it would mean that because I've never used the U.S. Army, I should not have to pay for it. Or, because I've never been to outer space, my taxes should not pay for NASA.
Here's the thing, we are members and citizens of American society and we all have certain rights. But with those rights come the responsibilities of paying to see those rights are applied equally to everyone. And if the government were obligated to pay for private-school educations for one, or 100, or 100,000 children, they they would be giving each individual much more than they put into the tax pot. Would it then be fair for the government to then say that because you've gotten much more than you've given, you have no right to any other tax-supported services?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
26 comments:
You can extropolate your way to Hell and back. The infrastructure that everybody is supposedly reaping the benefits from in this case is the public education system. Society is supposed to benefit from having well educated, informed, civic-minded citizens emerging from it's high schools. Show me one study that doesn't state that children educated in private schools, and the home- schooled surpass students in public schools. How can you say that parents who should receive vouchers for private ed systems don't deserve them? They are not shirking their responsability to society. Reason dictates that if their children do better in that system those same children will=better students=better citizens. Society gains here. If these parents receive no vouchers, they go out and bust their butts to achieve the same results, plus their tax dollars are still being funnelled into substandard school curricula. Leave things like they are so that no good deed goes unpunished.
I have my moments of lucidity. Graci.
Oh, I forgot to ask, are you that warfarin stranger I keep hearing about?
The flaw in the post's argument comes about where it doesn't go to the proper depth. The public has decided that all children should be educated to at least a certain set of standards. Thus, you have compulsory school attendance, or at least if a child is home-schooled, a certain criteria he or she is supposed to meet.
In order for the social contract "to be mutually beneficial to the group as a whole, as well as the individual" it's only dictated that the child be educated to that set of standards. It is not dictated where that education is to occur, nor should it be.
Taxpayers (i.e. society) also have a right to demand that their money that they give up in taxes for the common good be spent in the most efficient manner - in this case I think money following the child is the best method of achieving that.
Whether an individual gets more money from the pot in that particular case is relatively irrelevant. Otherwise the argument could be that those who live from government checks and do not work should not get those checks (or be able to drive on the roads, etc.)because they aren't contributing to the pot either.
While it may seem unfair, there's always going to be net takers and net givers. My point is that those who willingly or not give of their labor for society have a right to demand the greatest good from the equity they put in.
Welcome Warfarin.... interesting name.... you have clotting issues?
Swampy:
I have no problem with those who want to educate their children at home, or in private facilities. For me, the problem comes when they expect the government to pay for a private education when a public one is already funded. It makes no more sense than demanding the government pay a private security to guard your home when it already funds a public safety agency.... As for School choice, you already have it. If the school your child attends is so dysfunctional as to deny your child an education that meets the standards set by the government, you can move to a different school district, you can get off your butt and start becoming involved in your child's education, you can home-school, or you can enroll your child in a private school. Those are your school choices.
And if the school is so bad to raise these questions in your mind, another of the questions you should pose and answer is what you could be doing to improve your child's chances of success.
And here, let's posit part of that answer.
Schools are not, nor were they designed to be babysitting services or governmental parents whose job is to raise your children. They are supposed to be educating your children, and you are supposed to be instilling discipline, self-discipline, manners, and respect for themselves as well as others.
If you're not teaching them those things, then why would you expect them to function normally in a school environment?
School is a partnership between parents and educators, and when either of the partners fails to live up to their responsibility, then the education system breaks down and the result is what you see in prisons, substance abuse facilities and unemployment lines.
You want better-educated and more prosperous children? Then begin by assuming your role of a parent.
When you can show me you've done that, then I'll be ready to discuss using my tax dollars to send your little darling to a better school.
Also, welcome Michael.
"it's only dictated that the child be educated to that set of standards. It is not dictated where that education is to occur, nor should it be."
Mike:
NOPE. You are wrong. History and federal case law (I dare say) indicate that the concept of "Seperate But Equal" is without merit because invariably, seperate is not equal (See the federal Civil Right Acts of the 1960s and attendent case law)
Therefore, the governments are required to provide educational facilities that meet a universal standard-- realtive to the jurisdictional boundries -- and cannot discriminate for or against any particular demographic. If they have done that, then they have met the minimum legal standards. If the taxpayers want their schools to educate beyond that minimum standard, then they must make that clear to educators and be willing to pay for it. .... and now this argument has come full circle.
Swampy:
I think that's WaYfarin' stranger you're thinking about.... wayfarin'.... not warfarin.... warfarin is an anti-clotting medication.
I agree, Dick, and I think changes are definitely in order. But I don't think privatizing education is an answer. If it were, then private schools wouldn't need federal tax monies to remain solvent. Not to mention the fact wholesale private education would be rife with corporate psychology and corporate spin. Personally, I don't want the next generation to grow up learning to be loyal consumers. I want them to grow up learning discernment, and how to think critically.
And, don't for a moment think the government will have oversight on how and what children are taught. Because the republicans will be the first to complain the government is trying to tell private enterprise how to conduct its business.
John Wayne never made a good movie...it was all propaganda. He acted mighty brave and soldierly for someone who never served.
Dude Green Berets was horrible horrible acting...
As for the debate on public schools....a free education is often the only equalizer the poor and underprivlaged have in the fight for life. Complicating who gets what education only oppresses the poor.
Historical Wit, No one is denying the poor a decent education, that is if you want to call public education decent. You sound like you'd eliminate private and home schools altogether all in the name of combatting what you percieve to be oppression. You would have your classless society begin in public schools where the grading curve starts with the least common denominator. Mao would love you.
Historical Wit, I'm truly missing something here. That happens a lot with me particularly when I read some of your posts. I'll retire from this discussion. You may have the last word. But please, don't employ any logic. I wouldn't want to die of shock.
Swampy:
What the heck does uncle Mao have to do with this?... WQe're talking about American democracy
Sorry Ratturd if I had you flummoxed. You can call it an extrapolation, or maybe I just went reactionary when I saw John Wayne.
Symmy:
I too hate seeing my tax dollars wasted, and we can argue ad nauseum about what constitutes waste. But generally, relative to other kinds of governmental waste, I'm hesitant to say that money spent on education is wasted. Granted, there are some ineffectual programs out there .... NCLB leaps immediately to mind....but I don't think there are any children in this nation who are somehow less worthy of public education than others. Education is not a privledge, it's a right. And not only is it a right, it's mandated by state law that children of a certain age attend school.
That said, I do agree with Dick's comment that some children are not educable in the traditional school environment. But that does not mean they are uneducable in ANY environment.
Personally speaking, I hated the hell right out of school when I was a kid. I hated the regimentation, thought most of the rules were designed to keep me subserviant to the system and taught the same damned thing again and again. By the time 4th grade rolled around, I had tuned out, because it was a recapitulation of what we learned in 3rd grade, which was only marginally more advanced than 2nd grade.
In fact, it was not until 10th grade that I re-engaged in my own education, and that was only because I went to what was then called an alternative school where the classes were smaller, moved along at a faster pace and the lessons were much more complex. There was an open campus style of teaching and administration, and that allowed the students significantly more autonomy and engagement in their education. I loved it. I wouldn't have missed a school day for anything.
Prior to going to that school, I was one of those kids who you might have surmised placed no value on education... In fact, I thought I was too until I started attending this school. Only then did I understand that it was not education that I thought was worthless, it was school. It was the system of education that I thought was worthless. It didn't meet my needs and taught to the slowest person in the class.
So with the above revelation in mind, I'm absolutely in favor of magnet schools, those schools that teach more complex lessons actually teach students to think and reason and employ logic.
all of his WWII movies were propaganda.
What does it explain, Geezer? Does it explain why I'm able to hold an academic discussion, while you cannot even follow along, let alone contribute anything worthwhile? Does it explain why every post you've made here does not address the issues at hand, and instead marks you as having no more intelligence than a misbehaving four-year-old yearning for attention? Is that what it explains?
Does it explain why you're still here despite your criticism and bitching? No? Well, what does explain why you're still here?
RiverRat:
Propaganda, is much more complex than you seem to think it is. It is not just used for military purposes. It is used for social control and marketing... You see it every day if you look. Wayne was a social propaganda tool and no one understood than better than he. To use a term you might be more familier with; he was a hollywood role model, a cartoonish one, but a role model nonetheless of how a man should act. By the time of his death, his time as a role model had passed because society had become more sophisticated and figured out that the model he posed was pretty dull-witted, two-dimensional and never questioned his own motivations or authority.
"Hey brainiac, if you were half as intelligent as you claim to be you would have figured out already that I like to yank the chains of elitist, self-righteous know-it-alls like you."
If that's what you want to do, then contribute something worthwhile--tell me why I'm wrong. Tell us all what you think... that's the name of the game here. And although I appreciate all you compliments (backhanded as they may be) I never made any of the claims that you attribute to me....Further, the fact that all you're doing is spewing invectives tends to mark you as someone with a significant personality disorder.... you don't want that, do you? Don't be afraid of being wrong in your analysis-- be afraid of looking too stupid to form an opinion.
As you said, Geezer, I'm good at multi-tasking.
so, does that mena I guessed right about your personality disorder?
Geezer.... did you mean "instinct?"
yes RR... remember the multi-tasking comment?
That is some funny stuff. You guys kill me.
Post a Comment