You know, I couldn't help myself with this one, Z.

Being a home educator, I do have a bit to say, wait- chaos in the kitchen- will have to come back later....

I can't wait to see what you have to say...

Coming from a family of teachers (and lots of teacher friends) I'm not really sure who I trust the least to make decisions about education, the parents or the public school districts. Personally, I think that phasing out public education and phasing in school vouchers sounds like a good idea. (Keep in mind, this is my opinion and i have no concept of what constitutions or other legislation dictates.)

If we can assume that parents will have their children's best interest in mind, a voucher program could work well... there would be a variety of schools catering to different people, all providing good education because they could afford to recruit good talent/good teachers. Unfortunately, we can't trust parents.

We can't trust the schools, either. As of now (in CO, at least) they are using standardized testing to evaluate a school's performance. Could be a good idea, but they require each year's scores to improve upon last year's. That could potentially hurt schools that are already high performing. And in other schools, people do all sorts of goofy things to make scores better... thats partly why i don't trust public education to fix the problem.

Sigh. I hope someone figures out the solution. I managed to make it through the public education system as a success story, but I still have to put up with all the other people who didn't!

"I think it would be fairly easy to draft legislation that didn't use local dollars," Rep. Nancy Spence said.

Let's hope they get on this very quickly.

...the vouchers were earmarked for at-risk children of extremely low income families--families that would never have been able to afford private schools on their own...

I'm puzzled as to where these extemely low income families were going to find the rest of the private school tuition.

Existing quality private schools cost significantly more then $4500/year.

It is hard to imagine creating from scratch a quality environment with quality teachers for $4500/year/student.

I'm puzzled as to where these extemely low income families were going to find the rest of the private school tuition.

My very-low-income parents found the money to send my brother to twelve years of private school, and me for nine out of twelve. Without vouchers, but with a plan that allowed my brother and me to work off some of the tuition at the school.

So, it can be done, if the parents are sufficiently determined. Vouchers will simply lighten the load enough to make the option accessible to more families.

And that's A Good Thing™

(If Martha Stewart's lawyers call, I'm not in.)

I have to admit that I'm ignorant as to what the actual costs here in Colorado would be--and wonder if that voucher should be for distinctly more? Being a single, childless male has left me blissfully ignorant of these things.

I also know that religious schools tend to be a little less expensive (not that a religious school is a good answer for everyone). Looks like I have a research topic for the night...

Okay, some preliminary information. This comes from a Cato study from last year, and they certainly have an agenda to support, but it's a starting point for the conversation:

Average private school tuition in other cities tells the same story: a large number of moderately priced private schools with a few very expensive, well-known exceptions. Median private elementary school tuition in Denver is $3,528. In Charleston, $3,150. In Philadelphia, $2,504. In New Orleans, $2,386.

You can read it here.

O.K. Am back, and lost what I had originally typed so, sigh, must try to remember and post again.

It was the kitchen, then the backyard, then the frontyard, then tears over a lost doll shoe, and finally a wickedly incorrigble DVD, and alas, here I am again.

It is ultimately a parent's choice on who, where, what method, and when their child is educated. (Surprise, surprise that I think that). Rob and I conceived and coveted these children through our passion and prayers. And through these same things we will provide for them.

There are a lot of things one can do without if one so desires to sacrifice for the greater good (as attested to by McGehee). I love things and am a confessed recovering materialist (I like to buffer myself with thinking that I contribute much better to the economy as a materialist, but alas, four daughters, four educations, four weddings, grandchildren, retirement have to mean more to me in the long run than what I see in the Sundance catalog), but I will and have sacrificed to provide the best education possible for my children. What I mean, is, you don't have to be rich to give your kids a good education you just have to be disciplined and the government shouldn't tie a parents hands in rearing their children and providing for them.

Though we educate our children at home, we still pay property taxes. We vote for the person we have researched to be the best parent representative on the school board. The majority of this nation's people are going to be publically educated, so public schools must be strongly supported. But, when a district relies mostly on property tax because their state has rejected the "No Child Left Behind" (aka rejected Federal money), and that district is filled with vacant lots and no business but the non-taxed deals on the corner, it can be frustrating to both the educators and the parents. However, if a parent can't afford private tuition, I don't think it is the governments responsibility to take up that slack. Why can't the parent turn off the television, put aside the newspaper, make arrangements with a family member, hire a tutor once a week, anything to make the child's education their priority? They had the child, whether planned or not, and are ultimately responsible for the life of that child, not the government.

I think a better use of tax payers money is to offer greater incentives to teachers willing to teach in econmically depressed areas; to businesses willing to relocate in abandoned areas to rebuild local economies; to allow faith-based organizations to do their effective work in communities.

We don't make a whole lot of money, more than average, I know, but when mortgage (a VA loan due to my husband's service to this country during a war), taxes, insurance, food, utlities, savings for retirement and education and college educations, general savings for home repairs, new car, entertainment (I have to be transparent here, everyone has that category whether they budget for it or not)are considered, it's not like we're millionaires or living the high life. Everyday people make choices. Life is sometimes hard and sometimes we screw up, but our children are our responsiblity and only when a parent fails should they become society's. So, do your best where you are, but don't think that the government "owes" you anything more than freedom that it promised. It never promised the means of freedom, only that with your means, you can enjoy it.

(stepping out of flame proof suit now....)

Interested in what Rae and Z have to say about privatizing schools, and turning them all into businesses competing for children as they would for business.
Needless to say, each child would be worth a certain amount of dollars if enrolled in a school so that school would be entitled to those to the funding (already present) for each child they enroll.
The state would mandate the amount of training for teachers and the bonuses for things like a ESL program, specialty program for the deaf, etc.
Tell me some pros and cons.
I've been trying to work something like this out in my head for the better part of 14 years (sidenote: my oldest son's age).
-Super

Sorry, Z, I didn't mean to get all Shakespeare on you.
(Blogging within a blog)
It's just something that I've been curious about for quite sometime.
-Super

That's what the comments are here for--I just don't have time to answer the question quite yet. Hopefully some more voices will join in and give us their thoughts, though.

However, if a parent can't afford private tuition, I don't think it is the governments responsibility to take up that slack.

I don't think it's the government's responsibility to have anything to do with education in the first place.

Vouchers don't represent the government's money anymore than an income tax refund check does. It's the public's money, and any government involvement in education is on behalf of the public. In my opinion, therefore, if the public has decided that the best way to help ensure a quality education for the children of poor families, is to add a voucher program, then the government's responsibility is to do what the public directs.

Last I saw, vouchers still have overwhelming popular support -- particularly among demographics that have historically been regarded as disadvantaged, and which have historically supported the major political party that is most against vouchers.

Particular state constitutions may say otherwise, of course.

Schools that apply to participate in the program agree to accept the amount of the voucher as full tuition. The relatively few expensive schools didn't apply, but there were plenty whose costs were lower than that amount (schools get the voucher amount or their actual costs, whichever is lower).

As for eligibility, having had a certain number of poor schools in the base year is the criterion for whether a district has to participate in the program, but a child's eligibility is determined by his or her individual performance, not the quality of the neighborhood school the child would be assigned to.

Rob just came home and so I am popping in quick before I head up to prepare brinner (breakfast+ dinner; it's pancakes and bacon tonight).

Tell me about vouchers. He said just about what you did, McGehee. I don't think I adequately understand the whole idea or program. From where does the voucher money come? How is it distributed and how is it decided who gets it? And what happens to the 10 students left behind at now said defunct school due to everyone else leaving?

He (my R) thinks voucher programs are a great idea (now holding up mirror to McGehee) because it's our money anyway and we should be able to have it to use for our children and families in the way which is best (which when I think about it, I agree with the whole "it's our money anyway" thing but he challenged my thoughts on "allowing" vouchers). Made me go hmmmm. One of the many things I love about the man.

Anyway, can anyone answer the questions I asked? No time to research it here...Sun going down, got cakes on the griddle... (please forgive me for posting John Denver lyrics-that should get you some extra hits {laughing}- on your blog, Z :) )

I don't think it's the government's responsibility to have anything to do with education in the first place.

Sorry, McGehee. The government should AT LEAST ensure that there are minimum standards being met (yes, I know that doesn't happen now in some places). We can talk all about the "marketplace" correcting and bringing schools up to par, but in the meantime, countless children will be dealt the bad hand that they are getting now.

While the SCOTUS has - several times - stated that it is the parent's role to educate the child, they have also said - several times - that the government has a compelling interest in an educated citizenry, and such an interest would override the interests of parents that fall short of that standard.

Resist the tendency to see that all government is bad.

Re; the "It's our money anyway" bit. No, it's not YOUR money. It's an aggregate of the money from all taxpayers in the district, divided by the number of children enrolled in all schools. No one is paying $4,500 per year in property taxes. To wit:

"Thus, if the actual value of a home is $150,000, this figure would be multiplied by the assessment rate of 7.96% for an assessed value of $11,940. This assessed value would then be multiplied by the mill levy of 64.162(.064162) for a property tax bill of $766.09."
http://www.denvergov.org/Assessor/template14664.asp

So NO PARENT is paying all of their child's public school education. WE ALL ARE.

So NO, IT'S NOT *YOUR* MONEY.

From linsee, a few comments up (thanks for dropping by--we missed you at the last gathering, and I hope everything is going well):

Two things I didn't know--one of which I'm still confused on. Now I need more clarification.

I'm heartened to hear that the participating schools agreed to accept the vouchers for full tuition. That certainly answers the question, doesn't it?

What I'm confused about comes from the fact (and I have no reason to doubt Linda's word on the subject--I imagine she's far better versed on the program than I am) that I read this in the Rocky Mountain News a while back (after the first setback for the program):

Colorado's voucher system eventually was to become the country's largest, allowing up to 20,000 of the Front Range's poorest and lowest-performing students to use public money to attend private schools by 2007. The program was to start with roughly 3,300 children and 113 private schools.

I haven't read much more about the program than I read in the op-ed pages in local papers. Apparently, I need to read more about the system.

Bryan, why I will disagree with you is that the money is the public's money, not the government's money--and the public has shown consistent support for vouchers. I agree that there need to be standards, but the government money spent on education needs to recognize the desire of the people to have a choice in how the community's children are being educated.

Wow-Linsee, I should have read all the comments before asking the questions you so adequately answered.

So, a child's eligibility is determined by his or her individual performance, as in a poor performance on a standardized test or in grades? And the district is mandated to participate in a voucher program? How? If they have a certain number of poor schools, are they then supposed to allow a child to attend elsewhere; I mean can the child use the voucher to attend a public school that has better record for producing better educated students or is it (the voucher)only for private education?

Bryan, you are so right. I didn't articulate well enough. Pardon my incorrect diction. Mr. Zomby has said it quite well: "the money is the public's money." So, please forgive the faux pas.

I'm sorry that I missed out on this conversation. Z will tell you that I have very strong opinions on the subject. Alas, I am moving and that is keeping me away from the blog. Sufice it to say that the entire system stinks to high heaven and needs replaced. Privatize the wholde damn thing; stop making those of us who don't have (nor want) kids pay for your kids education, and pass federal legislation that forbids teachers from ever unionizing again.

the government has a compelling interest in an educated citizenry

Which is not the same thing as a responsibility. A compelling interest is judicialspeak for "power," but does not in any way imply a duty. The government also has a "compelling interest" in ensuring that law-abiding citizens do not become victims of violent crime -- but the Court has also ruled that the government has no duty to do so.

Don't get me wrong -- I don't want the government to be compelled to protect me from crime. I can handle that just fine myself.

Ditto education.

privatize the wholde damn thing; stop making those of us who don't have (nor want) kids pay for your kids education, and pass federal legislation that forbids teachers from ever unionizing again.

that is without a doubt the most cynical, unAmerican statement I've ever read from either of you. While we're at it, SJ, why don't we just make sure that I'm not subsidizing your college education (through subsidized loans or tuition grants), or the roads in Denver for you to get around on? after all, I have no plans to go to Denver, or Iowa. Why should I subsidize your population. Pay your own way.

There's a lot of things I pay for as a taxpayer (a middle class, married taxpayer, paying more on average than a lot of single taxpayers) that I wouldn't pay for if I could get away with it. In fact, I'd love to just take home my gross every month. But that's not part of being a citizen. And part of being a citizen means that you help ensure that the future generations of Americans are capable of keeping this country afloat (and the flame of liberty burning). Just like you contribute to the security of the nation with taxes that fund our military, you contribute to your future economic security through taxes that fund education.

McGehee,
Which is not the same thing as a responsibility. A compelling interest is judicialspeak for "power," but does not in any way imply a duty. The government also has a "compelling interest" in ensuring that law-abiding citizens do not become victims of violent crime -- but the Court has also ruled that the government has no duty to do so.

I stand by the statement. The government "of, by, and for the people" has not only a compelling interest, but indeed a duty, a responsibility. For without a generally well-educated populace, our democracy will suffer and die - see above.

Also, this from Meyer v. Nebraska:
The American people have always regarded education and acquisition of knowledge as matters of supreme importance which should be diligently promoted. The Ordinance of 1787 declares, "Religion, morality, and knowledge being necessary to good government and the happiness of mankind, schools and the means of education shall forever be encouraged." Corresponding to the right of control, it is the natural duty of the parent to give his children education suitable to their station in life; and nearly all the States, including Nebraska, enforce this obligation by compulsory laws.

Clearly, the need for an educated populace is something that the government has a duty to encourage to ensure its very life. (ditto a secure populace)

Bryan, a few things:

Firstly, Jerry served in the military--far more admirably than I did--to pay for his education. No one gave him anything for free. I understand the point that you're trying to make, but that's a mighty bad example.

Second, I don't agree with him--I do think that there is a compelling interest for the community to fund education for kids with the expectation that the education will prepare them to play their part in our society. I don't think the way the education system works right now, though, is the way it should work to achieve our goals.

Cynical? Sure.

Un-American? How do you support that idea. America is big enough to encompass quite a few political and social conepts--is his espousing one of them really un-American?

Further, you seem to be insinuating that we've made cynical and un-American comments before. Again, the cynical part I will happily agree with (although I would submit that I am a very optimistic cynic), but where have I ever espoused any un-American beliefs? And what, exactly, constitutes and un-American belief?

The rest of what you said is fine--I'm probably closer to your view on the subject than I am to Jerry's. But that "un-American" garbage is a little offensive.

One point of pride in my life is that I am very proudly patriotic and very proudly American. Not at the expense of valid criticism and not at the expense of believing that we can make things better--but I utterly believe in this country and I am in love with it despite its faults and because of its ideals.

The schools that are deserving of public support are the ones that parents want to send their children to, not the ones that they are forced to send their children to.
The parents that send their kids to these school are the same people that tend to vote down school voucher amendments (yes I know this was a court case) because their schools are good and they could get worse. Unfortunatly these votors are republicans to a degree, Suburban republicans that moved to the suburbs FOR the schools that are there. And of course, they vote.
I wrote an essay on this 2 semesters ago, I could ramble but I wont.
Matt

Bryan:

I’m going to limit my response solely to the issue of education. That being said…

I never stated that I felt that we should not pay taxes nor did I state that taxes should not be used to subsidize things that are of benefit to society but not necessarily beneficial to every taxpayer. Additionally, I never said that it wasn’t in our country’s best interest to educate our populace. These are all things that you have falsely attributed to me. For easy reference, let’s review what I did say:

1) Privatize the whole damn thing.
2) Stop making those of us who don't have kids pay for the education of others.
3) Pass federal legislation that forbids teachers from ever unionizing again.

Here is what it comes down to. I agree that it is in the best interest of this country that we have a well-educated populace. I have a Master’s degree, am pursuing a second, and teach at the graduate and undergraduate level at two universities. There are few people around who value education more than I do. I am also a realist and a business person, however. I don’t believe that we should give money to failing programs just because those programs support goals that I approve of. If the goal of the program is just but the results of the program fall short of the goal then the program needs replaced with one that works. This is the crux of my first point. Public education in America is failing. I believe that one of the keys to this failure is the inefficiency of governmental bureaucracy. I believe that our history shows that almost anything (not everything) that our government can do, private industry can do better. Education is one of those things. (As a side note, privatization is generally considered to be more American than socialism.) Privatization also offers parents choice, something that the current system offers them precious little of.

Privatization of the public school system does not mean that the government should not be involved. Because it is in the best interest of the country for the populace to be educated it should be the government’s responsibility to ensure that this goal is being met. In the world that I envision, the government would pass laws requiring all children to be educated up to a certain age and would have systems in place that could be used to measure the academic progress of children. There would also be penalties and defined responses for handling situations where a child is not receiving an education. Fortunately for me, envisioning this world doesn’t take very much effort – it already exists. Just ask anyone who sends their children to private school or home schools them. This, Bryan, is what I consider to be a valid use of my taxpayer dollars. Which brings me to point number two.

Having children is a choice. Even in cases of “unwanted” or “accidental” pregnancy there was a choice to have sex in the first place, there was a choice to not give the child up for adoption, and (since it is still legal) there was also a choice to not have an abortion. The people who have children have the primary responsibility to raise those children, not the government. Raising them includes educating them. The current system spreads the tax burden relatively equally among a large cross-section of the population without regard to their parental status. In my city, the main engine of taxation for education funds at the local level is property tax. The exact tax amount is based on home value, not the number of children. A person with children who lives in an apartment pays nothing to educate their children whereas I pay a lot of money because I own a house yet I have no children. I have no problem with some of my tax dollars going to education, but the current distribution is grossly unfair. If we privatize education and make government a monitor instead, the tax burden is carried by primarily by those who have children and not by those of us who don’t. Will there be people who cannot afford to pay for education under such a system? Certainly. Under such a system I would have no problem with using taxes to create programs which help out these lower income families. The key here is that we are only subsidizing those with need, not everyone. By the same token, I have no problem using tax dollars to help homeless people eat but I would fight vehemently against a program that called for a massive increase in taxes so that the government could take over all of the restaurants in the country.

As far as your road analogy goes, it is an irrelevant analogy (and, for the record again, I don not live in Denver, I live in Akron). You may not use the roads in Denver, but you cannot guarantee that you do not benefit from those roads. Many of the products that you use every day may be shipped by truck across I-70. Many of them may come from Denver (Coors, the mint, etc.) but others may simply pass through. Products that you use may fly through Denver. People that you depend on indirectly may live and work in Denver. They use those roads every day. You, as a taxpayer in another state, only subsidize a small portion of those roads – the interstate highways. All of the rest of them are subsidized at increasingly local levels. At the lowest level is the property owner. If the city has to work on a street they (at east in Ohio) bill the people who live on that street for the work. Forget the fact that the person who just got billed may work at the Coors brewery making the beer that you end up drinking over the weekend. The tax burden is spread very equitably across the population based upon the choices that they make. The same cannot be said for education (see the previous paragraph).

As for my final point, this should be fairly obvious. Schools exist to benefit the students. The teacher’s union exists to benefit the teachers. This is a direct conflict of interest. The result is that the teacher’s union often hurts the students when it seeks to help itself. Since educating our populace is so important (a point that you and I agree on whether you realize it or not) this conflict of interest is too damaging to be allowed to continue. Period.

First off, I was a bit unclear in my statement re: "your college education." What I meant was eliminate the system of subsidizing college educational grants and loans altogether - for everyone. It would have perhaps been better to word it "pay for our college education."

that said, Firstly, Jerry served in the military--far more admirably than I did--to pay for his education. No one gave him anything for free. I understand the point that you're trying to make, but that's a mighty bad example.

Actually, Jerry's service in the military doesn't guarantee him an education. That's something that "we the people" decided to do for those who served the country in our armed services. I'm glad that we did, but it's still subsidized by the government. It's the same thing with "work-study." Yes, you worked for the funds, but it's still subsidized by taxpayer dollars. That may be the most cynical thing I've ever written here.

Public education in America is failing. I believe that one of the keys to this failure is the inefficiency of governmental bureaucracy. I believe that our history shows that almost anything (not everything) that our government can do, private industry can do better. Education is one of those things. (As a side note, privatization is generally considered to be more American than socialism.) Privatization also offers parents choice, something that the current system offers them precious little of.

I don't agree that public education as a whole is failing. I think there are areas of failure, sure. But I also note that thousands of colleges and universities fill up every year with kids who are furthering their education. Every year, Americans come out of public schools and accomplish amazing things. Sometimes they do this in spite of the public schools. Sometimes, they do so because a public school teacher gave them encouragement they would not have received elsewhere.

To wit, I know a number of suburban schools in American (Hurst-Euless-Bedford and Clear Lake near Houston in Texas, for instance) where children perform very well and are succeeding. Clearly, that part of the public system isn't failing. Where the public school system is failing is more of a failure of the community. It's easy to blame the building, but there's much more to it than that.

(As a side note: parents have all the choice in the world in their schooling. It's called "moving." And it's how suburban school districts have maintained higher levels of achievement for years. Also, the district I live in allows parents to pay a fee every year and their child can attend any school in the district. More choice. And there's always the choice of home schooling or private school. I see choice all around).

In a lot of ways, I believe American society is failing our parents and our schools. But that's another post.

Regarding your comments on taxation:
A person with children who lives in an apartment pays nothing to educate their children whereas I pay a lot of money because I own a house yet I have no children. I have no problem with some of my tax dollars going to education, but the current distribution is grossly unfair.

This is bull. As a businessman with a masters degree (and a second on the way), you should certainly be aware that apartment dwellers *pay* taxes. The difference is, it passes through the landlord before it goes to the city. You don't really believe apartment dwellers pay *nothing* do you? C'mon, Jerry.

How is the current distribution grossly unfair? Would you prefer a sales tax method? I'm all ears for better methodology.

As for my second analogy, your refutation merely proves my point. I don't meet all the children my taxes help education, but I benefit from their education. One of them may become a nurse that helps my daughter deliver her children. Another may become the computer programmer who creates a computer program that helps cure cancer (to use the sappiest example).

In many ways, I have a far greater need for educated citizens than I do for a fixed pothole, which is why it costs us much more as a whole to teach our young than it does to fix our roads.

I didn't bring up the unionization thing, because I hate the NEA. However, I think employment shouldn't just benefit the employer, so there should be some way to ensure the employee isn't getting screwed. And the market doesn't do a very good job of that in a lot of professions.

At the lowest level is the property owner. If the city has to work on a street they (at east in Ohio) bill the people who live on that street for the work.

My PhD adviser mentioned that we should never mention the name of the state of Ohio in class, because it was an evil place. Perhaps this is what he meant. :-)

Just ask anyone who sends their children to private school or home schools them.

I know a lot of people who do both, Jerry. But I also know that not all parents are that involved, or that well-off (and yes, I do think there is a certain level of income that is required to send kids to private school for the most part) or adequately educated themselves to do homeschooling. so you want to privatize the whole thing. I'm not so certain that you're going to get a better educated populace that way. How do they handle education in the countries that are so often beating us in standardized test scores? I don't think they do it by privatizing their educational systems. But I could be wrong.

If we privatize education and make government a monitor instead, the tax burden is carried by primarily by those who have children and not by those of us who don’t.

And again, I think that's a selfish, short-sighted solution. Do people then get to stop paying taxes when their children grow beyond the age of public school education?

I keep coming back to the issue of cost-benefit. IF we agree that a well-educated populace is good for America, then I have no problem requiring that all Americans contribute in a somewhat equal manner to ensure that ALL of our kids receive an education (back to the "my money" part of the discussion). Requiring only parents to shoulder that burden is not really just, either, because "only parents" don't reap the benefits from the education (indeed, some parents don't reap the benefits at all, as they are shunted off to nursing homes when they get old).

Re: the children as choice argument. I agree that children are a choice. I am soon to see the birth of my third. I happen to think children are a blessing (and they keep people like you and me employed in colleges and universities). If I had to educate my children with no help from the government, I am confident my wife and I could do so. But I also know (my wife teaches second grade gifted and talented in a suburban elementary school) that there are parents who are not capable of doing so.

Because it is in the best interest of the country for the populace to be educated it should be the government’s responsibility to ensure that this goal is being met.

Great, more unfunded mandates. As for the private schools, I think there are a lot more problems with this model when you take it out of the area of self-selection (regarding indoctrination, religious education, homogeneity, government meddling, etc.)

My statement: that is without a doubt the most cynical, unAmerican statement I've ever read from either of you.

Cynical? Yes.
unAmerican? I thought so at the time. Perhaps not. The part of the statement that rubbed me wrong was the part about people who don't have children not paying to help education American children. Apparently, that stance is more "nuanced" than earlier stated.

Bryan: First, please stop with the sarcasm and insults. If you want to discuss this like adults we can. You can make your points more forcefully without insulting me or being sarcastic.

We can disagree as to my use of the word “failing” if you like, but standardized test scores, graduation rates, enrollment rates in college, all indicate a system that is performing progressively worse now than it has in the past and that continues to perform worse. Use whatever term you will, the fact of the matter is that public education has problems. Big ones.

You have completely missed my point on taxation. The issue isn’t whether or not someone pays taxes, it is where the proportion of the tax burden for a specific service is coming from. I own a house but have no children. I pay property taxes which then are used to fund public schools. A person who owns an apartment pays property taxes, too. He/she then divides those property taxes among the tenants through the rent. Bigger apartments pay a larger rent and, therefore, should a greater level of the taxation burden. Zombyboy and I used to live in a three-bedroom apartment. We had no kids. Many years ago, while I was in school, my father and I lived in a two-bedroom apartment. Given these three scenarios, the person who paid the least in property taxes was my father when he and I lived in a two-bedroom apartment (and he also got tax deductions for being the head of the household with a dependant), yet he is the only person in the scenario with a child. Thus, the burden is not spread proportionally. My father chose to have children where Zombyboy and I didn’t. Subsequently, the primary burden for educating his child should have fallen on him. The current system of taxation fails in this area. Privatizing education solves this problem by transferring the bulk of the tuition directly to the parent and leaving those of us without children to only assist with paying for administration of the government services necessary for setting/ensuring standards and for helping parents in need.

You are correct that parents do have the choice to move to better school districts and that they do have the choices of private schools and home schooling, but I believe this to be an overly simplistic evaluation. The problem with private schooling is that parents who send their children to private schools still pay for public education through taxes. This limits the accessibility of private schools and is the entire bases for school vouchers. Home schooling is more of the same. The parent pays for public education and then pays more for the necessary school supplies. Worse, one parent has to stay home and not work. Although I believe that children benefit immensely when only one parent works, this simply isn’t very feasible for many families. In both of these cases, privatization is a boon because the parents can use the money that they save in taxes to pay for the education of their choice. Moving is also just as unworkable for many. Moreover, it is a choice that I don’t believe that people should have to make. If there is a great desire among the people in my neighborhood for a business or service of some type the entrepreneurial businesses will bring it to us because they know that they can be profitable. Privatization of the school system allows the same thing to happen with education. The idea that your school district offers for allowing parents the choice of any school in the district is an interesting one and a plan that I would whole-heartedly endorse, but it is not universal.

With the road vs. education analogy, you are still missing the point that I am trying to make. I have never said that education is not important or that I do not benefit from an educated populace. I have, more than once, said that I do benefit from it. My issue is the distribution of the tax burden. If I choose to buy a house then I must pay the bulk of the cost for repairs to the road and sidewalk directly in front of it, not someone living in a different neighborhood. That is part of the responsibility of being a homeowner. The same situation does not exist for children. The person who pays the bulk of the K-12 education is frequently not the parent.

The following two statements from you are puzzling because they imply that I said things that I did not (n fact, they imply that my position is different from what I actually stated that it is):

”Do people then get to stop paying taxes when their children grow beyond the age of public school education?”

”Requiring only parents to shoulder that burden is not really just…

I have never advocated that only parents shoulder the burden. I do believe that parents should shoulder the bulk of the burden. Under a privatized system the way that I envision it the parents pay for tuition and the general populace, through taxes, pays for government regulation and assistance for the needy. Subsequently the answer to your question is “No.” parents would continue to pay taxes after their children are out od school. What they won’t pay is tuition.

You also say: “But I also know (my wife teaches second grade gifted and talented in a suburban elementary school) that there are parents who are not capable of doing so.” Again, I have this covered by offering government system, subsidized by my tax dollars, too, for helping the needy. Right now my tax dollars help those who are not needy, too.

In response to my suggestion for government regulation you say: “Great, more unfunded mandates.” Wrong. These mandates already exist and they are not unfunded. We already have standards bodies for public schools and Children’s Services bureaus for handling parents who don’t send their kids to school. The agencies that manage these services might need additional money, but that isn’t an issue since we are talking about massive tax reductions. The actual reduction would just have to have this factored in.

Bryan: First, please stop with the sarcasm and insults. If you want to discuss this like adults we can. You can make your points more forcefully without insulting me or being sarcastic.

Other than deriding your solution as "selfish and short-sighted," I fail to see how my comments were insulting or really that sarcastic. I could be a *lot* more sarcastic. (unless you're talking about the Ohio thing. that's the honest truth about my adviser).

First, let's be straight about what an "average homeowner" pays per year in taxes to fund public schools. A $150,000 home in Denver (to continue with my original scenario, although I'm sure it's probably similar in Ohio) will give about $700 in taxes to the county tax assessor in a year. Only a portion of that goes to schools. This is an incredibly small burden that you shoulder as a homeowner without children.

Instead, you would suggest that a family pay $3,500 per child per year for privatized education, and you say that this will be a boon to these parents? I don't see it. The economic impact of such an equation would be enormous, as I'm sure you would agree.

The problem with private schooling is that parents who send their children to private schools still pay for public education through taxes.

And the amount of taxes most middle-class people pay each year in taxes might cover 2 months of private school tuition these days (roughly $400 per month).

It seems to me (correct me if I'm wrong) that what you really want is to extend a higher education model (with required attendance) to the K-12 system, where parents would pay a significant portion of their income to fund their child's education every year. Those who don't have the money would get government subsidies funded by those who don't have children (and, presumably, those of us who do and are able to afford them).

My issue is the distribution of the tax burden. If I choose to buy a house then I must pay the bulk of the cost for repairs to the road and sidewalk directly in front of it, not someone living in a different neighborhood. That is part of the responsibility of being a homeowner. The same situation does not exist for children. The person who pays the bulk of the K-12 education is frequently not the parent.

This is a new phenomenon to me. As far as I have always known, homeowner responsibility for payment of repairs ended at the edge of the roadbed. But you are wrong regarding the situation existing for children. Parents pay for meals, room and board, health care (often though not always), clothing, and often transportation and school supplies. None of that is calculated in the "cost" we discuss, yet they are all costs that parents bear.

Maybe I'm not understanding your model properly, but I don't see that it financially benefits parents at all (except the very poor)

Bryan: You said: It seems to me (correct me if I'm wrong) that what you really want is to extend a higher education model (with required attendance) to the K-12 system, where parents would pay a significant portion of their income to fund their child's education every year. Those who don't have the money would get government subsidies funded by those who don't have children (and, presumably, those of us who do and are able to afford them).

This is exactly what I believe should be done. I believe that privatization of the public school system will help everyone. Here are my reasons:

1) I belive that a greater level of choice than parents now get will be good for the children and their parents. It will allow the parents to choose the school that suits them and their children the best and it will force schools to compete for students. In an open market, competition is good. School vouchers are a step in the right direction and so I enthusiastically support them. I do not believe that they go far enough. Privatization offers a greater level of choice.

2) I believe that smaller government is better than bigger government. I believe that the biggest problems with our current education system are government inefficiency and the teacher's union. I believe that private enterprises can run the schools better than the government and are better able to manage the teacher's union as well (although I also advocate outlawing the union).

3) I believe that using tax dollars to support public education under the current system is unfair to those that choose not to have children. Parents should be responsible for the costs associted with raising children. This includes food, clothing, and shelter and extends to education. People who are unable to afford children should not have them. When people are truly needy then the government (and the rest of the country by extension) should help them. Those who can afford their own children should not depend on others. The current school system allows all parents, at all economic levels, to utilize public funds for their children's education. Privatizing the system distributes the majority of the cost of education to the parent, where it rightfully belongs.

I emphatically believe that our public schools are getting worse and that there is no end to their current decline in sight. I believe that the best solution is a complete overhaul of the system. I believe that the best solution is to privatize the entire system. Under my system (which I am unlikely to see in my lifetime), the government would continue to set standards and define/enforce penalties for those who do not send their children to school. If the government wanted to run schools then the would be forced to compete on the open market with no tax funding the same way that the USPS does. The money that would be saved by not using public funds to run schools would be immediately returned to the taxpayers through tax cuts, across the board if necessary. Any tax that had been specifically enacted to support schools would be repealed first. Existing social services agencies would have their mandates extended to provide educational assistance to families who unable to afford to educate their children.

I emphatically believe that such an approach is not only better for everyone but is also far more "American" in spirit than our current socialized system.

Bryan:

You also make this comment: Parents pay for meals, room and board, health care (often though not always), clothing, and often transportation and school supplies. None of that is calculated in the "cost" we discuss, yet they are all costs that parents bear.

These are costs that you should bear since they are your children.

I emphatically believe that such an approach is not only better for everyone but is also far more "American" in spirit than our current socialized system.

I emphatically disagree with your assertion that such a system is better for everyone. As I mentioned, current tax burdens for educating children are spread out more or less evenly to all residents of an area. The system you advocate would put a tremendous financial burden on many families so that you can have a few extra dollars a month. How is that better for everyone? Yes, it's better for *you* and the single, childless population.

3) I believe that using tax dollars to support public education under the current system is unfair to those that choose not to have children.

We'll just have to disagree on this one. Not having children is a transient state for many folks. Perhaps we could have a system whereby people who didn't want to have children could sign a form, get sterilized, and receive an exemption from property taxes for schools.

Parents should be responsible for the costs associted with raising children. This includes food, clothing, and shelter and extends to education.

I'll play the devil's advocate here. Why? Why should a parent's responsibility extend to education? What if I - as a parent - only see that it is my responsibility to make sure that my child can read, write, do basic math and drive a stick shift. Isn't that enough? How far does my responsibility go there? Why does the government get to say how far I should educate my kid, if I'm paying the total freight?

For instance, I don't think it's my responsibility as a parent to pay for my child's college education. I will be happy to help if I can, but that's not my financial obligation.

People who are unable to afford children should not have them. The current school system allows all parents, at all economic levels, to utilize public funds for their children's education. Privatizing the system distributes the majority of the cost of education to the parent, where it rightfully belongs.

As I have said previously, the current system utilizes the power of funding from multiple interested parties (citizens) to do something that an individual citizen would have a very difficult time doing on their own (paying for several children's education). I find that to be a very fair system. We all benefit from an educated child. I dont' want to sound too much like Hillary "It takes a village" Clinton, but really, there is an aspect of this that is grounded in community, not individualism.

If the real cost of education should just be mine as a parent, then (cynic that I am), I should be able to choose what level of education I want, right? So I can take the Wal-Mart brand, or the Gucci. But how is that fair to my child? And who determines what's fair? Can childless children even have a say?

And you never really addressed the issue of cost-benefit. I find it difficult to say that your system is more "American" in that it will require a whole lot more from people in the way of requirements and taxation should they have children. Meanwhile, the single people, and the childless, live the scott-free life of leisure. When it is *society* that benefits from the education, not the parents.

Indeed, you are shifting to the parents the responsibility for funding the development of the future of the country with no assistance (and much government regulation) along the way. Not to mention the incredible economic impact of taking several thousand dollars a year out of the pockets of middle-class families (who would bear most of the burden).

I'm sorry. If that's your solution, I'd gladly accept vouchers.

You may be right. It is a selfish solution, and probably more "American" than I originally thought (that's sarcasm!).

You also make this comment: Parents pay for meals, room and board, health care (often though not always), clothing, and often transportation and school supplies. None of that is calculated in the "cost" we discuss, yet they are all costs that parents bear.

These are costs that you should bear since they are your children.

I never said the parent *shouldn't* bear those costs. But as long as we're talking operating expenses, I figured I'd throw those in. It's not as if children appear ex nihilo at the school door every day.

Can childless children even have a say?

Sorry, that should read childless people.

Bryan:

As I have said previously, the current system utilizes the power of funding from multiple interested parties (citizens) to do something that an individual citizen would have a very difficult time doing on their own (paying for several children's education).

This is what it all comes down to. There are many things in life that we can claim are good for our society as a whole. Once we declare something good for society then an argument can be made that society, as a whole, should foot the bill. Take this to the ultimate extreme and you get communism. Taken to an extreme in the other direction and you get anarchy. Reality lies somewhere in the middle. In order to keep us on this side of communism, lines have to be drawn. There are people in this country who believe that health care should be funded by the government because a healthy populace, it can be argued, is good for everyone. There are many more who belive that this crosses the line. Hence, we have privatized health care. There are many in this country who believe that Social Security should be funded by the government because it is good for society if we ensure that everyone is taken care of in their old age. There are many who believe that this crosses the line. Since the current majority feels that it is better for the government to manage Social Security, that is what we have. This may change in the future, however, because people recognize a problem. The same is true for K-12 education. Currently, the majority of the population believes that having the government handle this is the greater good whereas a small minority, like me, believe that this crosses the line.

Simply put, if the government funded everything that is "good" for society then we would be communists. Since we are not, being "good" for society isn't an argument in itself.

The system you advocate would put a tremendous financial burden on many families so that you can have a few extra dollars a month. How is that better for everyone?

The benefits to everyone are not limited to the financial alone. I oulined many other benefits that I perceive to the system. When looking at both the cost and the benefit we need to look beyond the actual dollar amount. I have no doubt that some families would find the adjustment difficult. Any change like the one that I advocate would need to provide for assistance to these people, especially during the tranition. I believe that the long-term gains in school quality and parental choice outweigh this on the whole.

As far as the actual dollar figues go, I don't believe that a simple comparison of the cost of a private school vs. the average property tax is a valid comparison. There are market forces at work now that would change dramatically if we privatized the entire system. There are also tax dollars that go to education that come from sources other than property taxes. Federal and state subsidies and incentives exist as well, as do ballot initiatives and other sources. I would be very interested in seeing a complete economic breakdown done by a credible source, but I do not know of one. I believe that the result of such a study would be very surprising to most people, regardless of their side of the issue.

I'll play the devil's advocate here. Why? Why should a parent's responsibility extend to education? What if I - as a parent - only see that it is my responsibility to make sure that my child can read, write, do basic math and drive a stick shift. Isn't that enough? How far does my responsibility go there? Why does the government get to say how far I should educate my kid, if I'm paying the total freight?

Why should the government require me to have a driver's license if I pay the entire cost of my car? Why does the government require me to get auto insurance if I am paying for my own health care? Why should the government regulate insurance companies if I pay the enitre premium? As you keep pointing out, Bryan, there is value to society in having government regulate certain aspects of our lives when doing so serves a greater good. Our task, as a society, is to determine what level of government involvement is good and what level is too much.

I should be able to choose what level of education I want, right? So I can take the Wal-Mart brand, or the Gucci. But how is that fair to my child?

You get to say simply because you are the parent. One of the biggest debates in our culture today concerns what level of involvement the government has in the life of a child. There are people in this country who think that parents should not be able to smoke in the house if they have children because doing so endangers them. There are others that feel that this is too intrusive. If you take the argument that the government should dictate how you raise your children to the ultimate extreme then the government has to raise your child. On the opposite end you have a bunch of messed up children. My belief is that the government should set minimum standards and that the parent should have as much choice as possible beyond that point. Let the parents parent, as should be their right.

Can childless children even have a say?

Herein lies one the biggest hypocrisies that I hear from many parents. You have expended quite a bit of energy today explaining to me 1) why it is in my best interest that your child be educated, and 2) that I should not complain about having to fund this education. Does it not stand to reason that if something is good for me and I have to pay for it that I should have some say in how it works? I don’t know where you, personally, stand on this issue, but there are many people that I know who get extremely offended when they think that I am trying to tell them how to raise their children (something that I try very hard to avoid doing). Many of these same people make the same arguments that you do when I express my belief that childless people should not have to shoulder as great a burden for public education as we do. The answer to your question, then, is “Yes.” So long as my tax dollars go to support public education I should have the same say regarding how the system works as anyone else.

The answer to your question, then, is “Yes.” So long as my tax dollars go to support public education I should have the same say regarding how the system works as anyone else.

Actually, that was a rhetorical question, along the lines of the canard that pro-abortion people use when arguing that men shouldn't be allowed a voice in abortion politics.

I agree that you should have a say. I think your solution is simplistic, and the benefits you outline are largely imagined, since such a large-scale conversion from government to private exists nowhere in the known world (least of all education).

Further, I note that the thing that makes private schools successful (among others) is the lack of government control and self-selection. Similar thing with home-schooling. The dynamics of private schools will change with a huge influx of children who are not among the "chosen." I'm not saying that is a knock against your system, but I think you're a little too idealistic in the benefits of privatization.

And again you conveniently leave off the point about who benefits from an educated child.

1) why it is in my best interest that your child be educated, and 2) that I should not complain about having to fund this education

No. I didn't say you shouldn't complain. I said that your complaints represent a very selfish outlook. Further, I didn't say that it was in your best interest that *my* child be educated, but that *all* children be educated.

You have spent an incredible amount of energy explaining to me how 1) I should foot the entire bill for my child's k-12 education; 2) the government can force me to do so to a level that I may not agree with; 3) society gets benefit from this tuition without putting anything into it (other than telling me how my child should be educated).

Bryan:

You have spent an incredible amount of energy explaining to me how 1) I should foot the entire bill for my child's k-12 education; 2) the government can force me to do so to a level that I may not agree with; 3) society gets benefit from this tuition without putting anything into it (other than telling me how my child should be educated).

This is not correct. Point #1 is more limited that what I said. I said that you shoud foot the bill for the entire education if you can afford it and that the rest of us should help out the truly needy. Point #2 is the way that the system works now - you are required to send your children to school and your default option is public school. In a fully-privitized system you have the same two restrictions that exist now (the government mandates that your kids get an education and they dictate the minimal level) but you get more choice on how to implement it. Point #3 is closest to the mark since I am advocating that the major burden of education be shifted to the parent (with the caveats that taxes are used for regulation and assiting the needy), but the same thing can be said of many services. Car insurance is the example that I previously used, but there are others.

I think your solution is simplistic, and the benefits you outline are largely imagined...

No argument there. As I said previously, I don't believe that it will happen in my lifetime, but that doesn't mean that it can't be advocated. So long as I define success as getting people to explore new alternatives I can be successful even if it never comes to pass. (Someone has to be a dreamer.)

...such a large-scale conversion from government to private exists nowhere in the known world (least of all education).

There have been many examples of governments transfering control of public services to the private sector. This happened extensively after the fall of the Soviet Union. I agree with you that the scale of services to transfer if we were to privatize public education may be historically unprecendented, but that doesn't mean that it wouldn't work. If we refused to make change simply because "it's never been tried before" then there would be no progress. This isn't to say that such a transition should be attempted haphazardly, it is simply to say that it shouldn't disregarded completely simply because it is radical.

I note that the thing that makes private schools successful (among others) is the lack of government control and self-selection.

If the lack of government control is one of the things that makes private schools so successful then why shouldn't we privatize them all? The first half of your statement almost sounds like an argument for privatization. I agree with you on the second half of your statement, however. The dynamic of the student body would be very different in a fully privatized system than it is in private schools now and this difference would have many effects. I don't know believe that they would necessarily all be negative, however.

And again you conveniently leave off the point about who benefits from an educated child.

No, Bryan, I don't leave off the point about who benefits from a educated child, conveniently or otherwise. I make this point over and over again.

I said that your complaints represent a very selfish outlook.

This is simply not true. I have repeatedly espoused my beliefs that privatization of the public school system is better for the child, the parent, and for the country as a whole. The part about me not wanting to pay for public education when I don't have children is selfish, but that is only part of my argument. My argument as a whole is very selfless. I could make the same claim about you -- that you are bring selfish in your opinion -- since you want all taxpayers to help pay for the education of your children (and as long as your children go to public school this is you, specifically), but I haven't and I won't since I know that your argument is larger than this.

BTW, for the record, no one is paying to educate my children but me at this point since they are both below the age of public school attendance, and I'm paying for day care. I've been paying into the system for 18 years, and am a product of public schools myself, so I'm not yet working on selfish.

re: private schools and government regulation: The point about the lack of government regulation in private schools was partly made to point out the difference between the way private schools work now and the way public schools work, and to suggest that a fully privatized system would degrade, because the government would actually apply more regulation to private schools.

re: private schools and population change: I never said the change from public to private would necessarily be all bad, either. I think the current system needs overhauling, not a new engine.

re: "we've never done that before." The problem is that we're not talking about a small-scale experiment here, or a voucher program. You're advocating the extinction of a method of education that has served this country well for a century, throughout its most explosive growth. I don't think the *system* is the sole problem. Indeed, there are areas (some of which I mentioned earlier) where the system works well, and children succeed in public schools.

And privatization will not solve all those problems automatically.

re: the point about who benefits: You don't address the issue, because I maintained that society has an interest in applying at least a minimum educational benefit to *all* children, regardless of family resources. Since there is no way of predicting who will have children, the best way to do this is to spread the cost of education among all citizens of an area, since all citizens will benefit from the potential productivity of an educated child.

For the parent to bear the burden of educating children alone would give society something for nothing (regulation is really not that much of an investment, sorry). Indeed, that's a perfect formula to discourage people from having children, if that's what you desire. But it's bad policy for the "common good," to borrow another liberal phrase.

Re: the use of car insurance as an example: The problem with car insurance as an example is the number of uninsured people who drive and get in accidents (I've had it happen to me, twice). As well, the entire insurance industry is built on pooled resources. I don't pay the amount every year that it would cost me if I had a mid-level accident.

The same goes with the license for driving. I don't *have* to have a license to have a car, or even to drive it (again, I have had one person plow into my parked datsun who can attest to this).

Besides which, a car is an item. A child is a human being. A fellow citizen. A person.

The funny thing about your idea is that people of means (and even some middle class people who manage their money well), already have the ability to enter such a private system. They do all the time.

And the lower class people would be subsidized by the government to pay for their children's education.

So really, your system only sticks it to the middle-class, which isn't really that different from most taxation plans.

Anyway, we've been debating this point for a century in Internet time, and the comments to this post are getting difficult to thread. I'd be happy to see a more readable debate on this topic somewhere. Iron Blog would be a good place for one.

Cheers.

I truly do hope there are no hard feelings.

Bryan:

I've been paying into the system for 18 years, and am a product of public schools myself, so I'm not yet working on selfish.

Actually, you are. Privatization aside, the current system itself depends upon an uneven distribution of taxes that favors one class of citizen over others. You are of the favored class. So long as you intend to 1) do what you can to maintain the status quo and 2) take advantage of the system then you are being selfish. Me, I continue to support the system even though understand its intrinsic flaws. I have even voted for tax increases for education when I felt that the end result of the legislation was worthwhile for the parents and the students, despite my lack of desire to ever have children. That makes me selfless with regard to this issue.

...to suggest that a fully privatized system would degrade, because the government would actually apply more regulation to private schools.

This is a staw man argument.

You're advocating the extinction of a method of education that has served this country well for a century, throughout its most explosive growth.

Yes, I am. Remember, though, that public education is a modern invention. There was no such thing when this country was founded - it evolved later as the country changed. If you want to talk about historical precedent the privatized education would have to be considered the norm. The problem with using a historical context is evolution. The world has evolved. At the time that public schooling started to become the norm people may have worried at the "extinction" of the previous system, but those worries, if they existed, are irrelevant now since the system did evolve. As our country continues to evolve we have to expect our education system to evolve, too. A strong argument can be made that a move from private education to public education was advantageous at the time that it occurred and then conclude that there has been tremendous benefit from that move. As our country continues to evolve it is possible that a set of circumstances will arise where public education is no longer the most advantageous approach. I happen to believe that we have reached that point now.

You don't address the issue, because I maintained that society has an interest in applying at least a minimum educational benefit to *all* children...

Yes, Bryan, I have addressed this issue. Several times. There are many things in our lives that benefit the entire country even though we don't know which citizens may need them. If we made all of them a function of government then we would be a socialist country (if not a full-blown communist country). We have to decide which things to leave to the individual and which to make a matter of government. I believe that education should be privatized, despite the fact that a well-educated populace is beneficial to our country. I also believe that Social Security should be privatized for the same basic reason.

Indeed, that's a perfect formula to discourage people from having children…

I don’t believe this for a second. One of the biggest conceits of the parents that I know and have spoken (I’m speaking in general, here – this is not targeted at you) to is their insistence that they are serving the greater good by having children. My fiancée and I currently have no plans to have children. In the past we have both asked virtually every parent that we know why they chose to have children, since we don’t seem to have that motivation. The answer is always the same – it is some derivation of “the children enhance our lives.” Always. No one has ever said to me that they want children because “all citizens will benefit from the… child.” Never. Not once. The simple fact is that people have children for inherently selfish reasons. They only trot out the “benefit of society” mantra when it comes to them getting the government to pay for some aspect of their children’s upbringing (I cannot include you in this because I didn’t ask you why you had children before we had this discussion but I have a hunch as to what would have happened if I had). That is why people in the lowest income brackets continue to have children despite their limited ability (and sometimes inability) to pay for them. People are going to have children regardless of the costs of raising them. This is a simple fact.

The problem with car insurance as an example is the number of uninsured people who drive and get in accidents…

There is no problem with this analogy. Parents are required by law to send their children to school, but the government doesn’t show up at everyone’s door, drag them to the school, and force them at gunpoint to register their children. If a parent does not send their child to school and the government finds out then penalties are enforced, with the stiffest penalty being the revocation of the parent’s right to raise their child. By the same token, there is nothing that prevents a person from driving without insurance but if they are caught then they face penalties with the stiffest being the revocation of their right to drive.

Besides which, a car is an item. A child is a human being. A fellow citizen. A person.

My analogies don’t compare cars to people. My analogies compare services to services and people to people. In my analogies, insurance and a license are to education what a driver is to a child.

The funny thing about your idea is that people of means (and even some middle class people who manage their money well), already have the ability to enter such a private system. They do all the time.

The problem is that the system is skewed to favor public education over private while simultaneously limiting the available private choices. What I am talking about is adjusting the system in the other direction.

So really, your system only sticks it to the middle-class…

Actually, my system protects the middle class by giving them options that they don’t currently have while simultaneously improving all available options.

Bryan:

Sorry that I posted my comments after your last one, but I was composing it when you posted your 7:40 AM comment and didn't see it until after I posted.

Absolutely, there are no hard feelings. I hope that that goes both ways.

Wow... that was a fantastic ride!
I particularly enjoyed...

"Perhaps we could have a system whereby people who didn't want to have children could sign a form, get sterilized, and receive an exemption from property taxes for schools."

HILARIOUS!!!

I'm middle class, and I have children, and I think that both of you guys kinda go over the top, but both are fantastic debates. I also own a business, which went unadressed in the "property tax" debate. Since Super Wal-Mart moved in across the street I may be looking for some lower property taxes down the road a ways real soon.
At one time, I also lived in the Houston/Clear Lake area where the public schools do work well (as stated), but you still have to deal with all of the crud that is in your district.
I am a fan of the privatization notion (and I believe vouchers could lead us in the right direction), as well, but not to the extent of changing the entire tax base. For the government to help some families (financially challenged) and not help others also seems a bit laborious. If the welfare system can be taken advantage of, as it is, then why in the world would we do the same thing with education?

-Super

link