Economic stupidity from a teacher...

[shagdrum]

Charge parents for public school
By Brian Crosby

With states across the country facing huge budget deficits and potential devastating cuts to services, the time has come to start charging parents tuition for their children’s public school education.

If parents of the 47 million students in the United States who attend kindergarten through 12th grade were billed $360 per child per year — that’s $2 a day for each of the 180 days of instruction — nearly $17 billion would be generated.

Can half of America’s parents afford $360 per year for each of their children?

For the price of a cup of coffee, a child can get educated for a day. For the price of a movie ticket, a child can get educated for a week.

For the price of a cellular phone bill, a child can get educated for a month. For the price of a video game console, a child can get educated for an entire year.

Parents spend hundreds of dollars on iPods and cellphones for their children. Is $360 going to break their backs?

However, let’s say only half of the parents can foot the bill. That still leaves $8.5 billion going to public schools.

Cutting a week out of the skimpy school calendar as some have proposed as a way to save money is not the solution to a fiscal crisis, though if the week cut out was the one for state testing, many teachers and students wouldn’t mind.

Already American children attend school fewer days than most other industrialized nations. While a free education for all is a wonderful gift, it’s simply not possible anymore.

There should be no sticker shock about this. Parents today pay for athletic uniforms, musical instruments, lab fees, school-embossed clothing, and field trips

Plus, they get nickeled and dimed to death from schools throughout the year to donate money for art and music programs, to get their cars washed for athletic programs, to consume cardboard pizza so that a few dollars will go to the schools. Children would no longer have to go begging relatives and neighbors to buy coupon books.

For years community colleges charged no tuition. Then, during a financial crisis, they started implementing nominal fees such as $50 per semester. “How dare they” demonstrations broke out proclaiming the beginning of the end of community colleges.

Well, today the colleges have more students than ever before, despite charging $15, $20 or $25 per unit. For an average class load of 15 units, the cost of one semester of community college is a few hundred dollars — not a bad deal. Nearly half of community college students get their tuition waived anyway because of their low-income status.

Attaching a price to “free” services will help students and parents understand the value of education. Psychologically it’s interesting how people view something that is free: They tend to place less value on it than if they have to pay for it.

Walk onto campuses right after lunch, especially at high schools, and notice the garbage strewn around. Students would less likely trash their schools knowing their parents had a vested interest in the property.

Look, nobody enjoys paying for services that used to be free. However, a generation of people has grown up with cable television and doesn’t even remember that TV used to cost nothing. Paying $360 a year for a child’s education is half of what the average person spends on watching television.

Which is more important?


Brian Crosby, a National Board Certified Teacher, is a veteran high school English teacher, author of “Smart Kids, Bad Schools: 38 Ways to Save America’s Future.” He is founder of the American Education Association and writes a blog at brian-crosby.com.

 

[rayner601]

I have been saying something similar to that for years. In MS, the school funding comes from mainly car tags and property taxes. I propose that the taxes that schools get be cut from our tax bills and then charge the parents of the students a yearly fee, chargeable to THEIR car tags and property taxes or payable in cash. The rest of us that don't/won't have kids can have some more cash to pay some other tax Why should single people pay for someone else's kid's education? That seems fair to me.

 

[Calabrio]

The author isn't saying that parents should be solely responsible for the cost of education- just that they should pay an additional $360. Just to supplement the cost.

You'd still be paying the property and sales taxes necessary to support the rest of it.

 

[Black87LSC]

I have been saying something similar to that for years. In MS, the school funding comes from mainly car tags and property taxes. I propose that the taxes that schools get be cut from our tax bills and then charge the parents of the students a yearly fee, chargeable to THEIR car tags and property taxes or payable in cash. The rest of us that don't/won't have kids can have some more cash to pay some other tax Why should single people pay for someone else's kid's education? That seems fair to me.

a BIG +1!

 

[Mavrick]

I only have two issues with this. One is the word stupidity in the thread title and two I say bump it to $500. We have woefully under paid teachers buying supplies out of their own pockets and increasing class sizes now. This way the people with kids would be helping to fill that funding gap and the ones without kids can hopefully starve off an increase in whatever taxes pay for education in their part of the country.

If my kid was still in school now I wouldn’t need to think twice about writing that check. I wouldn’t have had a problem with it while he was in school and I wasn’t in nearly as good financial shape as I am now. The question that comes to mind is if our kids education isn’t worth an extra $360 a year what is?

 

[Psychostang]

Thats it, charge the people more, more, more, more, more. We'll all be in the poor house. I do agree on one thing tho, take this :q:q:q:q out of my property taxes, I don't have kids. Also, I want a refund of all of my previous contributions. Actually, make the public schools funded by the people who use it. Take it out of all property taxes, and charge an apporpriate tuition! Now all of the illegals who are being taught by "American public" schools will have to pay. If they don't, down goes the class size. Think of it as population control. If you can't afford to send you kid to school, you don't have any. Now maybe we can get rid of all the overbreeding, that is draining our natural resources. Just an idea.

 

[04SCTLS]

Thats it, charge the people more, more, more, more, more. We'll all be in the poor house. I do agree on one thing tho, take this :q:q:q:q out of my property taxes, I don't have kids. Also, I want a refund of all of my previous contributions. Actually, make the public schools funded by the people who use it. Take it out of all property taxes, and charge an apporpriate tuition! Now all of the illegals who are being taught by "American public" schools will have to pay. If they don't, down goes the class size. Think of it as population control. If you can't afford to send you kid to school, you don't have any. Now maybe we can get rid of all the overbreeding, that is draining our natural resources. Just an idea.

It may feel good to vent however the interests of society outweigh your argument.

No one asks to be born and we have enough of a disadvantaged underclass without adding to it.

Businesses who pay a lot more taxes than individual people do could also say they should not pay school taxes because they don't have students.

If we don't have universal healthcare at least we have universal albeit flawed education.

You have to look at the bigger picture.

 

[shagdrum]

"Universal education" is hardly a "need" of society. It may be something most people like and enjoy, but to say it is a "need" is a gross exaggeration.

Besides, as with most things, universal education leads to universally poor education.

For your argument to stand you first have to show why universal education is a "need" of society (you cannot simply assume it). Then you have to justify the legalized theft (in the form of taxes) in order to fund that supposed "need".

 

[fossten]

It may feel good to vent however the interests of society outweigh your argument.

***

You have to look at the bigger picture.

Ah, yes, the old 'common good' argument.

You don't know much about America, do you?

Any more Marxist principles you'd like to extoll?

 

[04SCTLS]

IMO education raises the standard of living for all of us and is a good part of the reason the U.S. is the country it is today.

We may not lead in some fields anymore but that's because the rest of the world is catching up.

In reality all we need is food, water,and shelter.
Maybe we should all go back to living under the law of the jungle.

You guys amuse me.

Children are not little adults.
They have almost no control over their circumstances.
I think they should not be victims of political partizans.

So now foss you're agruing that universal education is a Marxist idea even though it's part of what IMO has led this country to greatness.

I think some parents can pay more for their children's educations and all parents should pay something.

My parents sent me to private schools that got some money from the taxpayers but they also had to pay the 300-500.00 a year that was mentioned above.

Universal education isn't even on the table and I haven't heard of any conservative luminaries or anyone else notable lamenting about it.

 

[Frogman]

IMO education raises the standard of living for all of us

This is why most billionaires are college dropouts....

and is a good part of the reason the U.S. is the country it is today.

Damn... And all this time I thought it was because of that little piece of parchment called the "Constitution". I guess I should have gone to college. I'd have known better than to make such a silly assumption.

 

[kustomizingkid]

As I go through college I am beginning to see it is a good way to put yourself into a situation of minor financial stability...

You get a college degree, get a job that sort of supports an ok lifestyle, spend your whole life making just enough to pay your bills, and that's about it... now if you actually want to make some money... well college doesn't teach anything about that...

 

[04SCTLS]

This is why most billionaires are college dropouts....

I know one personally.
We went to St. Mike's College High School together.
He went to University for 1 day and dropped out.

But I was talking about basic education.
Your anecdote doesn't prove anything.
Exceptions such as billionaire college dropouts do not disprove the general rule that having some education is better than not.

 

[04SCTLS]

Damn... And all this time I thought it was because of that little piece of parchment called the "Constitution". I guess I should have gone to college. I'd have known better than to make such a silly assumption.

You're just cherry picking my sentence.
I said a good part of the reason for US success is education.
The Constitution is another part.

 

[04SCTLS]

As I go through college I am beginning to see it is a good way to put yourself into a situation of minor financial stability...

You get a college degree, get a job that sort of supports an ok lifestyle, spend your whole life making just enough to pay your bills, and that's about it... now if you actually want to make some money... well college doesn't teach anything about that...

Yes to make money, luck, talent, creativity, timing and tenacity are required.
An education is no guarantee of success.

 

[fossten]

IMO education raises the standard of living for all of us and is a good part of the reason the U.S. is the country it is today.

You're speaking of 'education' generally, or of American government education specifically? There is a huge distinction. For example, if you were referring to private schools or home schooling, I might agree with your statement. If you're referring to public, ahem, I mean government schooling, you couldn't be more incorrect.

We may not lead in some fields anymore but that's because the rest of the world is catching up.

You couldn't be more naively incorrect. No it's not, it's because America's education system has been dumbed down. You want proof of this?

In reality all we need is food, water,and shelter.

Marx would be so proud.

Maybe we should all go back to living under the law of the jungle.

On Walden Pond, right? Let's turn the US into a Third World country so that we can ease our guilt for being so prosperous? Excuse me while I go barf.

You guys amuse me.

You, on the other hand, are not at all funny, especially when you spout these easily refutable Marxist viewpoints. You're just sad.

Children are not little adults.
They have almost no control over their circumstances.
I think they should not be victims of political partizans.

And yet children are a political tool used by the liberal Democrats to foist massive amounts of socialism on us year after year.

So now foss you're agruing that universal education is a Marxist idea even though it's part of what IMO has led this country to greatness.

See, this is what I'm talking about. You have no understandiing of America. Liberty and capitalism led this country to greatness, not universal, ahem, I mean government education.

I think some parents can pay more for their children's educations and all parents should pay something.

Find a public school where parents don't already have to come up with things like book and computer fees.

Universal education isn't even on the table and I haven't heard of any conservative luminaries or anyone else notable lamenting about it.

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

 

[04SCTLS]

You're speaking of 'education' generally, or of American government education specifically? There is a huge distinction. For example, if you were referring to private schools or home schooling, I might agree with your statement. If you're referring to public, ahem, I mean government schooling, you couldn't be more incorrect.

I'm speaking of the quality of education in the past that has brought this country to where it is today.
I'll agree with you that standards have fallen and the curriculum has been dumbed down so everyone can pass and I'll add that feelings have become more important than facts.

Marx would be so proud.

I was merely responding to shag's comment:

"Universal education" is hardly a "need" of society. It may be something most people like and enjoy, but to say it is a "need" is a gross exaggeration.

You enjoy pinning the "Marxist" tag on me under your extreme definition
and opinion that is not supported by any notable conservatives.

On Walden Pond, right? Let's turn the US into a Third World country so that we can ease our guilt for being so prosperous? Excuse me while I go barf.

You seem to jump to your own conclusions after putting your embellished words in my mouth.
This line probably concisely sums up your strong feelings about the Obama administration.

See, this is what I'm talking about. You have no understandiing of America. Liberty and capitalism led this country to greatness, not universal, ahem, I mean government education.

You probably view "government" education more as "Obamadoctrination"
but your alleged liberal malfeascence in and corruption of education is a fairly recent occurrence of the last 30 years.
The current universal system is uneven.
Rich areas have better schools and more money but that doesn't nessesarily translate into better education.

I went to Catholic schools that were part of the Toronto Seperate School Board.
These schools received public funding through parents who elected to pay their school taxes to the seperate board.
Parents paid on top of that directly to the schools.
Everybody at elementary school was Ukrainian on one or both sides which of course meant no other minorities.
Standards were pretty high.
At St. Mikes I had to wear dress shoes, tie and jacket and attendance policies were strict.
I suppose you could call these schools semi-private but they would not fall under your definition of government schools.

 

[shagdrum]

IMO education raises the standard of living for all of us and is a good part of the reason the U.S. is the country it is today.

An opinion based on...speculation? That doesn't justify your premise.

In my opinion, our standard of living is as high as it is due to the free market and the creativity/ingenuity it promotes. That opinion is based, not on mere speculation, but on empirical evidence and the historical record.

Can you provide similar for your claim?

In reality all we need is food, water,and shelter.

Correct. Do you think the government should provide for those? If so, how can they provide for those without infringing on people's rights?

Children are not little adults.
They have almost no control over their circumstances.
I think they should not be victims of political partizans.

Lucky for me that is not what I am saying.

You know better...

 

[Mavrick]

Using the assumption that the better educated our countries children are the better prepared they are to enter adulthood as productive members of our society. Doesn’t it stand to reason that the more of them that enter adulthood prepared that it’s that many fewer drawing public assistance or entering the prison system? Or even worse not entering the prison system when that would be the best place for them? Or even worse than that not getting the needle in the arm they so richly deserve?

With the support of the student’s families I really believe that investment in basic education is returned many times over by reducing the number of adults sucking up these public assistance or incarceration dollars. I base this assumption of the fact that we have a hell of a lot more people not drawing pubic assistance than people that do. We also have less people out of prison than in. I think that every once in a great, great while some things are just that simple.

Let’s say you don’t buy into my assumption of return on investment. I can’t believe that is possible because like some of the others on this site can’t possibly be wrong. But let’s say I am wrong just this one time. Even if the return on investment is a very low dollar for dollar isn’t a lousy $360 a year paid by the parents still worth it? On this one issue we should look at 50 cents on the dollar as a success. I would prefer that than having to use it on the alternatives.

It shouldn’t make a difference if you’re on the right, left or play between the forties. Isn’t this $360 well spent by the parents for the benefit of all? I know the system is far from perfect but what is? Do we want to stop trying to improve it?

Sometimes I’m not a fan of how our government spends our money. I do however think this is the most important thing our government can support. A more than adequate national defense would run a close second. I may not always like how they spend our hard earned money it but once again I think it beats the alternatives.

With the health care plan, the stimulus bills, the bailouts of banks and auto companies we are going to have winners and losers. It’s a fact of life. I just don’t see who loses here.

If you happen to be one that really wants to find a issue where everyone has lost have a look into the Air Force’s 10 year attempt to replace air refueling tankers from the 50’s & 60’s . You’ll all find someone to take to task on that one. It has enough political and industrial intrigue for everyone. I’ll let someone else get that thread started if any of you care to have a look into it and find it interesting.

 

[lincolnx2]

I say this again and again it doesnt matter what school you attend, I graduated from Cooley High school in the slums of detroit, I never attended college, and I am suceeding in life. People need to quit blaming the school systems for the kids being failures. Private, Home or Charter schools does not equal success. In fact I feel students that are home schooled, or attend private schools are placed at a great risk for failure when they finally make it to the outside world, they aren't exposed to real life, they are used to only being with a certain type of person, where's the diversity?

Charging parents for their kids to attend school would do nothing but force more kids to drop out, and turn to crime to support themselves.

 

[Mavrick]

I say this again and again it doesnt matter what school you attend, I graduated from Cooley High school in the slums of detroit, I never attended college, and I am suceeding in life. People need to quit blaming the school systems for the kids being failures. Private, Home or Charter schools does not equal success. In fact I feel students that are home schooled, or attend private schools are placed at a great risk for failure when they finally make it to the outside world, they aren't exposed to real life, they are used to only being with a certain type of person, where's the diversity?

Charging parents for their kids to attend school would do nothing but force more kids to drop out, and turn to crime to support themselves.

I do think that the $360 should be based on the ability to pay. You are absolutely correct that not being able to pay the $360 shouldn’t keep anyone from being able to get a basic education. In the first post I placed on this subject that was one of the reasons I wouldn’t have had a problem with being hit for $500.

By the way, I don’t care what your politics are. Thank you for your service

 

[lincolnx2]

I do think that the $360 should be based on the ability to pay. You are absolutely correct that not being able to pay the $360 shouldn’t keep anyone from being able to get a basic education. In the first post I placed on this subject that was one of the reasons I wouldn’t have had a problem with being hit for $500.

By the way, I don’t care what your politics are. Thank you for your service

I know I have done some crazy things in my life, but I do my job well! thanks!

 

[Calabrio]

People need to quit blaming the school systems for the kids being failures.

That's fine, but isn't it reasonable for all of us to want to get the absolute best VALUE for every tax dollar that the public invests? Why take ideas off of the table in an effort to simple defend the status quo?

Private, Home or Charter schools does not equal success. In fact I feel students that are home schooled, or attend private schools are placed at a great risk for failure when they finally make it to the outside world, they aren't exposed to real life, they are used to only being with a certain type of person, where's the diversity?

How do you define "diversity?" Does that just mean kids of all races?
Kids of all economic classes? Or do you mean ambitious kids mixing with angry kids who like to rob other kids in the bathroom?

That "diversity" argument has long been made as a way of marginalizing home and private schooled children for years, usually by people who don't have the time, motivation, or money to do it.

If it were really that important, would Obama have sent his kids to private school? What about the Kennedys?

Charging parents for their kids to attend school would do nothing but force more kids to drop out, and turn to crime to support themselves.

Maybe. It's hard to say. The collective culture expects this service to be given them, so it's hard to imagine what people would do if it weren't.... however, it shouldn't be federally funded, it should be a state and local issue.

 

[lincolnx2]

That's fine, but isn't it reasonable for all of us to want to get the absolute best VALUE for every tax dollar that the public invests? Why take ideas off of the table in an effort to simple defend the status quo?

Do you know how to take advantage of every tax dollar that you invest? It's simple! DISCPLINE your child, stop using "bad schools" as an excuse. I went to a Detroit Public School, my school came last in every thing imaginable, but that didnt stop me from getting the education I needed, I took advantage of every tax dollar, why can't others do the same?

How do you define "diversity?" Does that just mean kids of all races?
Kids of all economic classes? Or do you mean ambitious kids mixing with angry kids who like to rob other kids in the bathroom?

Kids of all races, social, and economic backgrounds, thats diversity, that America. Chris Webber (NBA Player) was from a low income area in Detroit, parents didn't make a lot of money. He was awarded a scholarship to Detroit Country Day (Elite Private School) He didnt rob anybody, infact most of there basketball, baseball, and football players are on scholarship, and no incidents of robbery have occured. What will happen when they reach college? Colleges have a multitude of kids from all races, social background, and economic backgrounds, should colleges be segregated based on what you can afford?

That "diversity" argument has long been made as a way of marginalizing home and private schooled children for years, usually by people who don't have the time, motivation, or money to do it.

well I am making the argument, and I dont have kids, and when I do have kids, they will attend public schools, but I will also take the responsibility and raise my kids and not use "bad schools" as an excuse if they become failures.

If it were really that important, would Obama have sent his kids to private school? What about the Kennedys?

They are VIP's, they need to attend special schools, do you not think their are lunatics out there that would try and hurt them?

Maybe. It's hard to say. The collective culture expects this service to be given them, so it's hard to imagine what people would do if it weren't.... however, it shouldn't be federally funded, it should be a state and local issue.

I think education should be free to those who take advantage of it.

 

[Calabrio]

Do you know how to take advantage of every tax dollar that you invest? It's simple! DISCPLINE your child, stop using "bad schools" as an excuse. I went to a Detroit Public School, my school came last in every thing imaginable, but that didnt stop me from getting the education I needed, I took advantage of every tax dollar, why can't others do the same?

We agree, responsible parenting is critical, regardless where your child attends school. And going to a bad school doesn't necessarily condemn your child to a bleak future.

No one here is disagreeing with your point.

Let me use another example.
Let's say the city wants to fix a road.
They have a bunch of guys working for the city that usually fix the roads, and frankly, there work leaves a lot to be desired.

They aren't very consistent, there work is often poor, and because of there poor efficiency and high wages, it's very expensive to have them do the work. But, ultimately, the do fill in the hole with something, and the road is drivable enough again.

But what if there were private paving companies that could fix the road faster, better, and smoother for less money? In fact, there were two other paving companies that weren't just better than the city workers, but were competing with each other to be the best service.

Would you still want to leave well enough alone, or would you want the city to consider hiring the the private companies to do some of the work instead?

It's doesn't matter if the potholes that the city workers fixed were "good enough" or that you could easily avoid them... the point is that there was a better and cheaper alternative available.

Why wouldn't you hire the private companies and let them compete for the government contract?

You're answer to getting the most out of your investment completely misses the point. That'd be like paying $30/lb for crappy beef and then telling the person to make pot roast out of it to get the most value.

Kids of all races, social, and economic backgrounds, thats diversity, that America.

And you can only get that by attending an inferior or mismanaged public school? Why can't you have a diverse privately owned school?

What will happen when they reach college? Colleges have a multitude of kids from all races, social background, and economic backgrounds, should colleges be segregated based on what you can afford?

Should car ownership be segregated by what you afford?
Should neighborhoods be segregated by what you can afford?
I don't understand your point.
Why does cost or achievement have anything to do with diversity?

well I am making the argument, and I dont have kids, and when I do have kids, they will attend public schools, but I will also take the responsibility and raise my kids and not use "bad schools" as an excuse if they become failures.

You continue to miss the point.
Why should we have and continue to defend "bad schools" or a system that protects and perpetuates "bad schools?"

Why don't we consider different ways to structure the education system so that we get the best education value for dollar for ALL kids.

The personal responsibility issue is a separate one within the context of this discussion. But how much better educated would a kid with discipline and good parenting do in a "good school" rather than if he'd gone to "bad" one?

Why continue to put money into a system or school that is failing? Why do you defend the status quo when it's not working as well as it should? Why not find BETTER solutions to the problems that exist? We aren't required to have bad public schools. We aren't even required to have government run schools with union teachers. Why don't we do what's best for the students, what's best for the population, and what ever is the best investment instead of clinging to policies from the last century that aren't working.

They are VIP's, they need to attend special schools, do you not think their are lunatics out there that would try and hurt them?

And lunatics can't get them in a private school?
Jimmy Carter sent his daughter to public school. The secret service won't let anything happen to any of those kids, so where they go to school really isn't the security issue.

And I'm not arguing that they SHOULDN'T send the kids to private schools. I'm just pointing out the "diversity" issue that is thrown about doesn't seem to apply to them. And that's understandable, because it's non-issue.

I think education should be free to those who take advantage of it.

What else should be free? Food? Clothes? Heating oil? Basical health care? Housing? Those are all essentials. Should they be free? And who should pay for it? Those that can "afford" it?

Should k-12 be free?
Should you get an AA/AS or BA/BS for free?
What about the graduate degrees?
Doctorate?

And why should they be free?
Should a guy who digs ditches be required to pay taxes so that I can go get an advanced degree in basketweaving on the back of his labor? Is that fair? Is that an American principle?

But since grade school is supported by the community, we should find ways to improve it. Many parents need to do more, we agree. But that doesn't absolve the local government from improving the quality of education either.