Posted on 06/18/2005 8:15:49 AM PDT by Graybeard58
And by that same token, anyone that does not have children at all shouldn't have to support it either. Then what you have is people paying for their own children's education. If this is to be the case, then why pay taxes at all? Cut out the middleman.
The real problem here is that many people truly cannot afford to pay for their children's education. Which brings up the point of "why are they having children if they can't afford it", and opens another huge can of worms.
A school is a machine. Children are, for all intent and purposes, morons. The purpose of the machine is to provide structure and discipline to create an atmosphere in which the basics can be pounded into their thick skulls.
When you start tinkering with that machine -- say, putting home school kids in after school activities or in classes their parents can't teach -- the machine will break. Suddenly you have kids who take three classes at the school and parents teach the rest. Or, kids who want specialized instruction that meets their schedules.
But, as I said previously, there probably now enough parents and others who are more than capable of taking apart public education in many communities across the country -- so the whole debate may be a moot point.
Let me put it another way. If a tax paying citizen is paying for a quality education for his/her child(ren), these parents should qualify for a serious tax deduction to compensate for it. What they are essentially having to do is pay twice for educating the same child.
"What some people on this thread tend to forget is that many of us here are teachers"
And for the most part, it's not the teachers that are the problem.
The problem lies in the fact that the government school system is rotting from the top down because of influences like the NEA and the like. Most of the dollars get siphoned off by a top heavy administrative structure with not much left over by the time it gets down to the classroom.
It is true that the only people that have total control over their children's education are home-schoolers. It isn't cheap, however. What irks me is people that want that kind of control but aren't willing to pay for it.
GAME, SET, AND MATCH!
For one thing, they don't want them exposed to the drugs and sex in public schools now days. You wouldn't believe what public school kids do on road trips and between recitals.
They may receive no federal or state money for an enrolled student, however, they do receive whatever local school tax money her parents pay (and can be a hefty sum, depending on the district).
And I'm sure some homeschooling parents do a wonderful job. I'm sure their kids get the kind of individualized attention it's impossible to provide in a large public school, albeit at the cost of less socialization. What really gets me is the need so many homeschooling boosters have to tear down public schools, and not just specific schools or school systems, but public schools in general.
If homeschooling is all they claim it is, why is it not enough to say how good it is, without trying to exaggeratedly denigrate the alternative?
I understand your point. However, I am currently paying for the education of children that I don't have. If somebody with a child gets a "serious tax deduction" to compensate for the fact that they have decided to provide a better education for their children, why shouldn't I get a "serious tax deduction" to compensate for the fact that I don't have any children to educate?
In other words, a home-schooler is paying twice for the education of one child. I am paying once for the education of one child. The kicker is, I have no child to educate. My unfair tax burden is identical to the home-schooler's. Why shouldn't I get equal consideration?
If she doesn't attend classes, she should be able to participate.
No government agency should provide any welfare or as it use to be known, charity.
I know that is not point that is being discussed, but we should never concede to the socialist that it is the role of government to provide for the basic needs of individuals.
You're right, I probably wouldn't believe your account of it.
You say, ,"As long as the parents are supporting the virtually worthless public education system, they are entitled to avail themselves of some benefit from it should they choose to do so."
Sorry - I don't see the public education system as worthless. If you don't like it, don't use it but don't turn around and insist on walking in at will and demanding to hand-pick which parts you like. If every parent had this attitude, there would be nothing to debate about because the band wouldn't be there. If home-schoolers want to form their own band and exclude public school students, go for it but stop complaining that the "useless public school system" won't let you use IT.
Folks, it is a beautiful day, and I have to get out of my cave for awhile. My bicycle is beckoning...
It's not a matter of being stingy, it's a matter of understand why school services exist, they're for the students of THAT school, not some other school.
I'm not saying that you shouldn't. To be honest, I haven't really thought much about it. I did not home school, but I did make a lot of sacrifices to pay for private school education because that was the only way I could feel confident that the school was supporting the values I spent the first 5 years instilling, not undermining them. It was also the only way that I felt that I was involved in the academic process and the provision of a quality education. I didn't trust the public schools any more than I would trust a convicted thief with access to my bank account. It got me really hacked when I was struggling to provide an education I couldn't really afford to know that the public school was dipping into my paycheck and absconding with money that I earned and very much needed myself.
In life people do it all the time. I don't have anyone in the local junior college, but I pay for it. I don't know anyone in jail, but I pay for it. I could not honestly care less what happens to Iraq or the people in it but boy, am I paying for it.
"albeit at the cost of less socialization"
The old "socialization" argument. This country must have been a real mess before the government school system came along and socialized everyone properly, those poor uncouth founding fathers.
In my experience it is a fact that a greater percentage of home schooled childeren interact more comfortably and effectively with adults as well as their peers.
What you view as "socialization" i.e. discussion of mature subject matter, learning new four letter words, school violence, etc. is socialization my children have done quite well without.
You say, "If homeschooling is all they claim it is, why is it not enough to say how good it is, without trying to exaggeratedly denigrate the alternative?"
My feeling exactly. Most of us are products of public schools and send our children to public schools and we and our children have all gone on to lead useful, productive lives.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.