IT’S ALL ABOUT SELF-INTEREST …
|| By FITSNEWS || Located in the northwestern suburbs of the capital city of Columbia, S.C., Lexington-Richland school district five is supposed to be one of the best school districts in the Palmetto State.
Of course that’s not saying much when you consider South Carolina is home to the nation’s worst government-run school system … which despite the infusion of additional billions in tax dollars continues to underperform.
Why’s that? Easy: Because the government-run system is an effective monopoly. With next-to-nothing in the way of market pressure (and a guaranteed stream of growing revenues from taxpayers), there is zero incentive for the system to improve. And so it doesn’t.
And no effort is ever undertaken to change things …
Aiding and abetting this chronic institutional failure is the pervasive self-interest of the “public education” lobby – which continues to demand more money from taxpayers in the face of declining results.
In Lexington-Richland school district five, this naked self-interest was on display in a recent Powerpoint presentation. Prepared by district officials as part of their effort to raise taxes (again) on local residents, the Powerpoint contained a hilarious slide entitled “The Problem.”
Take a look …
(Click to enlarge)
(Pic: Provided)
Funny, huh?
Yet while it’s undoubtedly part of the problem, trimming excess bureaucracy isn’t going to be part of “the solution.”
Take a look …
(Click to enlarge)
(Pic: Provided)
Yeah … how’s that for priorities?
Of course in the extremely unlikely event one of South Carolina’s liberal mainstream media outlets decided to cover this crass case of bureaucratic self-preservation, the district has a six-person public relations office ready to respond …
(Click to enlarge)
(Pic: Provided)
Good to know, right?
96 comments
Just wanted to propose a quick toast. We have officially been LMAO free for a month. Cheers!
Careful, that is tantamount to saying Beetle Juice three times.
… it’s too late!
http://humor.gunaxin.com/65-pictures-scream/106874/
“government-run school”
*rings a bell*
Time for a shot everyone!
lol….doesn’t make you any less right btw, just makes things more enjoyable.
Anyone who has seriously looked at the ramifications of Act 388 understands that even if expenditures are held flat schools face a deficit each year.
Want to blame someone for your business taxes going up, blame the freeloading homeowners who pay no tax toward school operations.
So now homeowners are “freeloaders” eh?
Why is the solution always another tax? How about some fiscal restraint instead?
Have you ever seen a production at Lexington High? Several years ago I took my kids to see a production of a play there- the production values were incredible.
Incredible sound system, lighting, stage, etc. et al.
I mean seriously, when you compare the production value to some of the small outlets in downtown Columbia, like the Trustus- well it makes them look two bit.
Do the kids need that kind of expenditure in order to “learn”?
Your statement is hogwash. There’s plenty of fat to cut in that district.
“Why is the solution always another tax?”
Republicans don’t want less taxes, they want less taxes for a minority of the population.
Republicans don’t want less spending, they want less spending on a majority of the population.
Republicans don’t want smaller government overall, they want smaller government for most.
Republicans will tax you more, spend less on you, and throw even more burdensome laws on you and claim it is freedom.
Just ask our resident liberal pogo, advocate for higher taxes and big government.
You missed the point Pogo. Why should homeowners, most of whom either have or had kids in the schools, not be assessed some portion of their property tax to pay for operations of schools?
Yeah! … and I’m betting some of them actually went to school at one time or another, too!
And maybe the problem there is that those freeloading homeowners learned something about greedy inefficient taxing authorities. … Oh Bummer.
” Why should homeowners, most of whom either have or had kids in the
schools, not be assessed some portion of their property tax to pay for
operations of schools?”
First, I’d like to see where you found a statistic showing most homeowners have or had kids in school.
Second, if you’re concerned with making sure people with kids in the school system pay, why not charge them upfront to send their kids to school?
Oh, that’s right, you don’t care about fairness, you care about sucking as much taxpayer money into the system as possible.
Whether homeowners have or had kids in the schools is not the point. Whether FITS likes it or not, we agreed long ago that educating ALL kids is our aggregate responsibility.
“we agreed long ago that educating ALL kids is our aggregate responsibility.”
“We agreed”? Who’s we? I’ll bet if you take a survey statewide, this “agreement” you are referring to doesn’t exist.
More importantly though, even if we run with this notion that there is a universally agreed upon “we”, if the metric is that “everyone” should “share” the cost of educating SC’s kids(a Kumbaya commie moment we can all be proud of, let’s hold hands and sing), then doesn’t make sense to tax everyone regardless of whether they own a home or not?
That would seem to be in keeping with the SC Constitution that all of a sudden everyone is worried about moreso than picking on homeowners and business owners that already foot much of the bill.
If the argument is “we” all decide to pony up for kids education, the EVERYONE should be paying…including those in apartments, renting condo’s, etc.
How are you going to hold apartment dwellers accountable to PAY their tax? As a homeowner, the government will eventually cease my home if I refuse to pay the property taxes.
“How are you going to hold apartment dwellers accountable to PAY their tax?”
The same way that taxes are taken now, you pull it out of their check. If they don’t work, deduct from their “benefits” if they have kids.
The SC government has a myriad of ways to yank money our of people’s hands. That the least of the “problems” with making sure everyone “pays their fair share”.
OK. I understand your resentment of paying for poor people’s kids to be educated. But realistically, do you think implementing a new tax on renters would add much to the revenue. Take into account all the new guvment workers and perhaps another “state agency” to collect this new tax.
“But realistically, do you think implementing a new tax on renters would add much to the revenue. ”
Yes, I do! There are tons of kids attending public schools whose parents are “free loaders” as the poster put it above. They should have to “pay their fair share”.
Think of it this way, if everyone contributed, the amount for those already paying would be substantially lower. You wouldn’t have the middle class & small business subsidizing the lion share of government school for poor kids, while the more well to do and large corps get sheltered from contributing by FILOTS and the such.
The cost would be spread out. The posters comment that homeowners are freeloading is the farthest from the truth it can possibly be.
What about renters who do not have school aged kids? For example, a 22 year old starting out on his own with his first real job and trying to make it on his own. Do you really want to further burden him with another tax?
It was you who argued “we agreed long ago that educating ALL kids is our aggregate responsibility.”
So you want to backtrack now? Who should or shouldn’t pay by your definition of “we”?
I think Freeloaders has already answered that in explaining to you that apartment OWNERS pay property tax. What’s wrong with you? Are you just an Anti-Renter?
“The posters comment that homeowners are freeloading is the farthest from the truth it can possibly be.”
No is isn’t. No homeowner (legal residence) has paid one dime of property tax for school operations since 2008.
However businesses and those owning a second home have continue to pay this tax. My argument is that homeowners, who most directly benefit from good schools, should also pay for school operations through property tax.
“My argument is that homeowners, who most directly benefit from good
schools, should also pay for school operations through property tax.”
You’ve never proven homeowners most directly benefit.
You also are also arguing against yourself by using the SC Constitution as justification, because instead of it being a “shared burden”, or “we” as you claim, you are singling out homeowners while ignoring everyone else in the state that should “pay their fair share”.
Are you hard of reading?? I already spelled out that schools are also funded through car taxes and sales taxes. Nobody in the state can escape sales tax. My argument is that IF schools are going to be funded in part through property taxes then everyone who has property should pay, and pay at the same rate. Right now businesses and 2nd home owners pay more than you and I.
Of course homeowners are the most direct beneficiary of good schools. Take District Five in this story for example, property values plummet once you cross the line into Newberry or Kershaw Counties. Why? Ask any realtor you know…people will pay more for good schools. This boost in property values benefits all property owners, not just the ones with kids.
I get that you want to reject reality and substitute your own, or the one fed to you by the “no tax” crowd, but the bottom line is that good schools benefit all.
“Are you hard of reading?? I already spelled out that schools are also funded through car taxes and sales taxes”
Guess what champ, no one follows you around to read your inane posts to see what your big plan is, especially because it’s not going to happen. More importantly, my response was to your post above, where you NEVER stated said plan, instead calling homeowners “freeloaders”.(which is absurd- if anyone deserves blame is the legislative body)
“My argument is that IF schools are going to be funded in part through property taxes then everyone who has property should pay, and pay at the same rate.”
You never made that argument in this thread until later, after you made your absurd & irrelevant initial post.
Now you want to backtrack, probably because your conscious now of how stupid you sound.
Schools are already funded in part through car taxes and sales tax, no plan on my part.
My first post assumed you had a basic understanding of the issue, something you obviously still lack.
You started off with a retarded statement to start, it doesn’t matter how you backtrack now.
No, my premise that homeowners are freeloaders because they don’t pay any portion of property tax for school operations while business owners and 2nd home owners do, and at a higher rate, is an accurate assessment.
The fact that you lack any base knowledge of the subject and can’t debate it with any level of competency is on you.
Apartment owners already pay property tax at the 6% rate, so effectively the apartment dwellers are paying the tax.
No, EVERYONE should pay their fair share. The SC Constitution says so, right?
That includes those living in apartments, but also everyone who lives in state that hasn’t contributed.
Just because the owner of their apartment pays more, doesn’t relieve their burden to pay as well, they are the real freeloaders.
Are you hard of reading? Those who live in apartments ALREADY pay. If you don’t want to accept that the landlords pass on the tax they pay for the apartments to the renters then read where I said schools are also funded though car taxes and sales taxes. Maybe they could escape the car tax, but they sure could not escape the sales tax.
The SC Constitution does not spell out how the state funds school, just that it must. Do you not read the paper or watch the news? Have you not seen or heard of the any of the school funding issues at the SCOSC? If not you must be one of those old retired curmudgeons that figures “I’ve got mine, screw everybody else!”
Seriously Pogo, you need to spend a couple of hours on Google before you come back…
“We agreed”? Who’s we?”
Check the SC Constitution Pogo, it gives every child of this state a “free and public education”.
Seriously, buy a clue.
So “we” is the SC Constitution?
Seriously, buy a clue.
From the preamble -” We, the people of the State of South Carolina, in Convention assembled, grateful to God for our liberties, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the preservation and perpetuation of the same.”
Google is your friend Pogo…don’t be a simpleton your whole life.
“if you’re concerned with making sure people with kids in the school system pay, why not charge them upfront to send their kids to school?”
Because the SC Constitution guarantees each child a “free and public education”.
Why don’t you try and educate yourself on the issue before you comment?
“Because the SC Constitution guarantees each child a “free and public education”.
When why not have a tax for EVERYONE regardless of whether they have a house or not genius?
Oh, that’s right…you don’t care about “freeloaders” as you put it. Now you care about the “SC Constitution”. Welp, since that’s now your new argument, you can’t bitch about the way things are currently done because they are in line with the SC Constitution, that you are so concerned about. So if you don’t like the tax system as it sits, change the “SC Constitution”, or have a glass of STFU.
Unless of course you want to answer my original question and prove you’re not full of BS:
“First, I’d like to see where you found a statistic showing most homeowners have or had kids in school.”
Pure bullshit I say, but go on and show me where you got that metric.
“When why not have a tax for EVERYONE regardless of whether they have a house or not genius?”
Get a clue…we do. School funding comes from several sources – sales tax, car taxes and property taxes to name a few. Everyone in the state pays one or more of the above taxes. It would be easier to debate with you if you had a clue as o what you are talking about.
“you can’t bitch about the way things are currently done because they are in line with the SC Constitution, that you are so concerned about.”
I never said they weren’t, I pointed out that your inane idea of have a special tax for people who send their kids to public schools was in direct conflict with the SC Constitution. Homeowners were taxed for school operations before Act 388, so my thought that we return to that is legal.
“I’d like to see where you found a statistic showing most homeowners have or had kids in school”
Common sense proves this one, for your argument to be true 51% of the population would need to be childless. Nice logic there Pogo.
BTW just to clear the air I own my own home so I am advocating for a tax that would affect me personally.
Out here in Taxifornia the LA school district built a brand new high school, very high tech, very “pretty” architecture … and it only cost the taxpayers an even One Billion Dollar$ (plus interest on the bonds).
Homeowners shouldn’t be paying for schools via property taxes. EVERYBODY should contribute including those renting.
Eliminate the tax on homeowners to fund schools and raise sales tax 2-4%.
So landlords pay no taxes on the properties they rent? The renter just pays thru another step. BTW, ever heard of 4% vs 6%?
Don’t be absurd.
Pogo lives in Section 8 housing, he’s only heard of 0% his whole life.
Pogo lives well.No Section 8 and he doesn’t live with his mother.
MICHIGAN EDUCATION REPORT
The Engler Education Legacy
Published on Nov. 17, 2002
As the era of Gov. John Engler passes into Michigan history, it would be well to take note of the administration’s significant legacy with regard to education policy.
Under Engler’s leadership, Michigan became one of the foremost states in education reform – 11th in the country, according to the Heritage Foundation’s annual report on school choice in the states. He leaves office with a record of progress few will be able to match: a charter school movement that is alive and well, a more equitable per-pupil school funding formula that dramatically reduced property taxes and guaranteed funding for all public schools, and a public school choice program that provides incentive for schools to compete for students.
Narrowly elected in 1990, Engler faced widespread public dissatisfaction with escalating property taxes to pay for schools, many low-performing schools, and little incentive for improvement. Calling Michigan’s education system a “monopoly of mediocrity” early in his term, Engler set out to provide a better education for Michigan students.Proposal A’s origin: Lower taxes, guaranteed funding for schools
In the early 1990s, Michigan’s property tax burden was 35 percent above the national average due in part to frequent and irregular local millage elections for education. Engler’s administration, along with the Legislature, made attempts to lower property taxes for several years.
In 1993, the Michigan Legislature succeeded in drafting a plan to cut property taxes for education, a move which the New York Timescalled “the nation’s most dramatic shift in a century” for school funding. Michigan voters approved the plan, Proposal A, as a constitutional amendment in 1994.
Proposal A shifted the majority of school funding from local property taxes to the state sales tax, which increased from four to six cents per dollar.
The plan cut property taxes by a third, alleviated equity gaps in per-pupil funding between districts, and established a per-pupil funding guarantee for public schools.
Since the inception of Proposal A, revenues for public schooling have increased by more than 50 percent, from $4,200 to $6,700 per student – double the inflation rate.
The plan’s per-pupil funding system, when combined with the public school choice plan enacted later, created the level of competition we see today among Michigan school districts.
It works.
Yup! Taking the load off of property owners and wealth creators (property taxes) and putting the burden of payment on to the poor (sales taxes) always works! … Except every Holloween when the poor troll the streets and burn houses to the ground.
I don’t think i’s quiet he nirvana you would have us believe –
http://www.mlive.com/politics/index.ssf/2014/02/fact_check_did_michigan_gov_ri.html
For two homes of equal value, the property taxes paid on a rental home (which the landlord includes in the rent) are 50% higher than the property taxes paid on an owner-occupied home.
It’s more like 300% higher under act 388
No tax on homes = less taxes on the rich.
More tax on sales = more taxes on everyone else.
Pogo won’t have to worry because EBT is exempt from sales tax.
EBT should NOT be exempt from tax.
That’s ridiculous!
act 388 went into affect in 2008.
LEX 5 REVENUE WAS 125,936,349 IN 2007
LEX 5 REVENUE WAS 143,302,052 IN 2008
INCREASE REVENUE BY 17,365,703 , THAT WAS A DISASTER FOR
LEX 5
You are talking budgets, not revenue. As far as budgets, by 2011 the budget was 142,323,920. A million dollar decrease v. 2008. Tell me again how great Act 388 is?
142,323,920 WAS THE 2012 BUDGET,THE 2007 BUDGET WAS
127,788,805 SO THE BUDGET WENT UP 14,535,115 FROM 2007
You mean to tell me that that the budget grew by about 2% a year! Why that is outrageous! How could costs increase that much! I pay the exact same amount for everything each year so should the school district!
A 2% increase might cover the CPI increase each year.
Are you really so stupid that you can’t understand his argument?
Can you not do math? How is a 2% increase in budget each year unreasonable? Did the cost of water, electricity, gas, insurance and a myriad of other items increase from 2007-2012? Of course they did.
You must be one of those low information voters.
You really are incredibly dumb, it’s not even worth trying to explain to you. I’d have to start by defining the word “disaster”, which makes it a non starter for me as I’m not patient enough.
If your disingenuous and not dumb, it’s even more pointless.
“How is a 2% increase in budget each year unreasonable?”
The fact that you can’t or won’t answer this question indicates to me that you are either duplicitous or too full of Kool-Aid to think straight.
“The fact that you can’t or won’t answer this question”
You never asked me smarty pants, you asked him. Learn to read, then go look up the defintion of the word “disaster” and you won’t have to ask EDR what is or isn’t unreasonable.
In fact, he’ll use your own argument against you, 2% isn’t unreasonable whether you get it or don’t get it.
In the picture it doesn’t justify that silly graph the educrats put up.
Try not to be daft.
… blame them … or join them.
“freeloading homeowner” Yeah Right. I’ll send you my rent bill to the county in Dec. when it comes due. Property taxes are the worst tax there is. The more you bust your ass to have something the more the govt. rapes you at the tax office. Here again we need the fair tax.
The Republicans will never support a flat or “fair” tax, their donors from the business world will never allow it.
If not via property taxes, please enlighten us with your strategy to fund county and city level services.
I’d start with not funding them and see what happens, so if the world comes to an end or if unicorns to appear and fart out funding.
“Services” are usually something someone willingly pays for. I suppose an grubby bum that comes up with a dirty cloth and wipes your windshield and then demands a $1 from you is providing a “service” in your mind too.
so=see
So, we can start by putting a gate at the end of your driveway that only opens to allow you access to the roadway “services” once you insert some money? When you call 911 can the police, ems, fire refuses to respond until you provide a credit card or some other form of payment?
“So, we can start by putting a gate at the end of your driveway that only opens to allow you access to the roadway “services” once you insert some money?”
You mean, like a toll road?
“When you call 911 can the police, ems, fire refuses to respond until you provide a credit card or some other form of payment?”
You have the choice to refuse those services(except police “services” if someone has called them on you), so let’s not fund them and see what happens.
Fire departments used to run without government money before the government mafia moved in. There’s no reason EMS can’t either, all it is is a call center and there many private ambulance companies in existence already. They’d probably appreciate someone giving them a credit card before a ride.
If you want to support the grubby bum extorting you for money by wiping your windshield whether you ask him to or not, feel free. Just stop forcing the rest of us to pay him to.
So people doing there jobs are expected would remain employed without a cut in pay?
WHAT AN OUTRAGE !!!
Not to mention the kind of luxury that a salary around $30,000 can buy.
The fact that the state pays teachers anything at all is an outrage to the wingnuts. Alec, the Koch Brothers, Howard Rich, etc want to put an end to public education. Educating people who can’t afford private school is socialism!! Its not what the founders intended.. If you can’t afford school you don’t need an education.
“This is what comes from educating peasants.” David Koch.
No one here is complaining that TEACHERS get paid too much. The article specifically mentions excess bureaucracy. There are too many paper pushers making triple digit salaries while teachers work their tails off.
Not to mention the schools might be better off if they did not have to spend 12 million dollars to fight the 3 Chapin HS lawsuits brought by Kim Murphy. Lawsuits in which she NEVER won a single legal decision.
http://www.lexrich5.org/m/content.cfm?subpage=61369
In the real world, that is, in private industry, employees DO INDEED take a pay cut when times are hard. In fact, most of us in private industry walk in to our jobs every day not knowing whether it will be our last day! Teachers have contracts which GUARANTEES a job for a full year.
Teachers sign contracts that have a 190-day duration, and there are penalties for breaking them. They can also be released from said contracts due to misconduct, breaking the law, etc. And no guarantees of renewal either. Look at a principal cross-eyed and he can choose to let you go at the end of the school year.
My wife has been a teacher in one of SC’s highest-paid districts for the past 5 years. Next year she will be teaching in one of the highest-paid districts in Tennessee. By moving she is getting a $7,000 bump in salary, plus an effective 7% raise because there’s no state income tax.
Like anything else, you get what you pay for.
The nature of the job is one in which employees (teachers) need to commit and administration needs to commit for a school year or at least the semester in order to serve the needs of the students (customers). That is the reason there are contracts. And of course a bad teacher can be released from his contract. And why SHOULD there be guarantees of contract renewals? Oh and in case your mama didn’t tell you, don’t piss of the boss man (or look at your principal cross-eyed). Duh.
THE PROBLEM:
# 1: The graph does not have an abscissa.
# 2: There is no ordinate.
# 3: There are no scales or any values.
Guiding Principles
# 1: Use a graph that does not inconvenienced the speaker with facts.
# 2: The graph should be designed for those lacking critical thinking skills or too lazy to use them.
Does that mean we don’t have to learn common core math to understand it?
You just got an “A”.
Is that the district that employs Hot Pants Kelly Payne?
That photo — it’s really the Grand Turnip, isn’t it? ……..CONFESS..!!
What Educrat drew up these power point slides?! Go find just one business out there whose #1 Goal is to maintain jobs for employees! No business, whether private or public should make creating or maintaining jobs their #1 goal.
It is the basic job of any and all government employees to maintain and increase their paycheck and benefits package. Improved outcome has little to do with that.
Better would be for education management to have positive performance bonuses for improvements in outcome, like better educated students … and negative performance penalties for failures.
The teachers hands are tied in many cases bc the class size is too big. I don’t see a fair way to tie student success to pay bc some teachers are in higher income schools and others are in low income schools. Until we cut the fat (Educrats), revenue is going to be used to pay glorified paper pushers.
I was referring to “education management”, the bureaucracy, and not to the teachers.
If the Educrats can not do the job of improving district / school outcome, then they should not receive any bonuses or increases in pay and bennies. If the Educrats are responsible for reduced outcome, then they should have their pay and bennies cut or be sent down the road.
Teachers have one job IMOP and that is to teach. The district administration has one job, to help teachers provide the best education possible. A really smart Educrat/administrator, seeking applause and perks and bonuses will do everything possible to improve outcome, including rewarding superior teachers. The dumb ones that fail to make improvements in outcome would have their pay cut, repeatedly.
We’re basically on the same page here. It’s just that I think there are too many Educrats. Keeping school management as close to the local level as possible would require less bureaucracy and therefore less corruption.
To answer your question- No we have not the problems California has with having to teach non English speaking students. (There are some I’m sure) In fact, we have teachers here who cannot send parents grammatically correct emails. I have a copy of one on my fridge including my redlining corrections!
From a small businessman’s point of view, the non-productive overhead is what one should cut first. That invaribly “fixes” cash hemorrhage questions.
But in a larger bureaucracy, embroiled in politics, often the best performers get the grief and leave or are demoted. To “fix” that, a paycheck based on positive performance may be the only way to throw out the bad babies with the bathwater and keep some of the better ones.
I’m not at all surprised that teaches can not write. Way too many of them are coming out of the system with nothing but a smattering of “ebonics” and Mexican Spanish … Business English being frowned upon.
(My senior year in high school I took an elective course called “Business Law and Economics”, which I consider to be the best and most useful high school class I have ever heard of. Mrs. Emma Brockelbank, a small of stature, silver haired little old lady, was also the only teacher I had who carried a 12″ wooden ruler for the purposes of discipline, and She Used It Too! [She was independently wealthy and did not need the job, having scored big time in the stock markets of the Great Depression!])
Public education has been such a great burden to America over that last century. The Wright Brothers went to public school. How did we win World War II — build Liberty ships, equip our allies, create a huge navy, construct thousands of airplanes and the atom bomb — with so many people denied the benefits of school choice? Jonas Salk went to public schools. How were the NASA engineers and scientists who took us to the moon educated? Nobel laureate Charles Townes of Greenville, the inventor of the MASER/LASER, attended public schools until college. I could go on and on. It’s really too bad America has been hindered by public schooling in building the richest society in the history of mankind. Gee, if we had had school choice it may have made all the difference.
You are talking a different day in education. When teaching was a calling instead of a job. When the bureaucracy actually did it’s job instead of perpetuating the status quo for their own benefit and children had two parents. Sadly those days are gone.
That’s mostly just finger-pointing. Blaming the teachers and the faceless bureaucrats is easy. If children aren’t succeeding in school perhaps it’s not the school’s fault? Education begins at home. Do parents value it? Do parents create an environment conducive to reading and study? Do they reinforce discipline and requirements levied by the schools? In a place like SC, where you have a vast pool of poor and ignorant parents, how do you expect children to be imbued with the value of education? That’s a slow process. School choice is a “pie-in-the-sky” solution. Republicans just want to tap public money for private schools to benefit their supporters on the religious right and those who always opposed desegregation. Instead of “reinventing the wheel,” let’s make work what we’ve already invested in.
You status quo types just keep throwing money at the same old problems, getting the same old results then sit back and say, that is just the way it is. As hard core as it sounds , we can’t save every child. I like to compare school choice to the kid on the beach where the starfish had washed up. His dad told him his throwing them back wouldn’t make any difference. He retorted “it made a difference to that one.” Tax credits for private school tuition would help those that have the initiative and desire to make a better life for their children. Sadly all won’t partake but we can save some of them. As it is now we sacrifice generation after generation of our children at the alter of “public education” . Nothing changes except we are spending more and more money, getting more and more generations of lower and lower levels of education. The rest of the world goes on to better and better things and our once great country keeps doing the same old thing. Most of Europe lets the money follow the child which results in better education for the vast majority. As well as public education is working here, why not try something else. We don’t have much left to lose.
The issue as always is if you don’t have the money up front to pay for the cost of tuition, a tax credit on the back end is worthless. Solve that problem and you’ll have a lot more proponents of choice.
Ah, yes — just a minor detail which exposes the facts about those who support and will benefit from vouchers. The GOP has been after public money for private schools since the seventies when desegregation and busing became reality.
Europe has strong and well-funded public schools, as I know from first-hand experience. Where does this “money follow the child” take place? Catholic countries under the sway of the Vatican?
With all the benefits Europe has to offer, one has to wonder why people don’t stay/move there instead of trying to bring the politics of Europe here.
Mencken was asked why he stayed in dysfunctional and corrupt America rather than emigrating to more civilized Europe. He responded: “Why do men go to zoos?”
I don’t think he was enamoured with Europe either, he was just an equal opportunity exposer of corruption and stupidity:
“IN THE IMMORAL monarchies of the continent of Europe, now happily abolished by God’s will, there was, in the old days of sin, an intelligent and effective way of dealing with delinquent officials. Not only were they subject, when taken in downright corruption, to the ordinary processes of the criminal laws; in addition they were liable to prosecution in special courts for such offenses as were peculiar to their offices. In this business the abominable Prussian state, though founded by Satan, took the lead”
later in the same essay:
“I do not propose, of course, that such medieval laws be set up in the United States. We have, indeed, gone far enough in imitating the Prussians already; if we go much further the moral and enlightened nations of the world will have to unite in a crusade to put us down.”
:)
Dripping with sarcasm…plenty of scorn for both sides of the shore.
In a funny way, he was a “Reagan” man, he just actually meant it when someone said “government is the problem”, unlike Reagan.
My family has tried private schools and public schools. Private schools do not offer a better education. If you are looking to make sure your kid is with “the right type of kids”, then go ahead and spend your own money for private school.
looks like taxes are going up all over
http://www.thestate.com/news/local/education/article24693193.html