Taxes and education. I just don't get it. Why are some....

Like I said, I just don't get it.

This is OT, I guess, and probably offensive, but...

What kind of values is this that it's more important for mommy to be gone working all the time so they can afford a "McMansion" than to live in a safe, modest home and mommy be there to actually raise and nurture the kids?

I will never understand why people have children and try to give them the best money can buy while neglecting the things that really matter that don't cost a thing.

This is OT, I guess, and probably offensive, but... What kind of values is this that it's more important for mommy to be gone working all the time so they can afford a "McMansion" than to live in a safe, modest home and mommy be there to actually raise and nurture the kids? I will never understand why people have children and try to give them the best money can buy while neglecting the things that really matter that don't cost a thing.

Not really OT, TW.  Not really OT at all.

To me it goes back to the house that my former co-worker and her husband wanted so badly and felt they had to have.  Even though they had a town home that was comfortable for them (not luxurious, but comfortable I would say) they wanted more.  Bigger, better.  More exensive.

I don't get it either.  My wife has been able to be a stay at home mom for my children, at least for the most part.  She had help from her parents with my son, and then pretty much went totally stay at home when my daughter was born.  It has meant we have missed things that her friends have had, and it has meant that we live 'as trailer trash' in a mobile home because houses are just too stinkin' expensive where we live (and pretty much in the entire state of Maryland).

We get by.  We have some luxuries, including video games, pay TV, going out for dinners, and on vacations and such.  But we made the choice to live this way.  Our home is nice (or it is when it's cleaned up nicely.  My wife and kids are a little piggish about keeping things clean).  2 Bedrooms, 2 baths.  A nice play room/Florida room for me to compute in, play video games in, watch TV in, etc.

Paying too much money to live in a home, and getting yourself in the bind of having to live on two incomes just seems so silly, but an awful lot of Joneses do it just to keep up with others.   Yup, seems silly to me too.

I am glad you weren't offended.

I understand that sometimes there is no other option (and some moms need that intellectual stimulation/adult time that work provides), but it seems so backwards to me for mom to leave the home to provide excess.

Mom gone all the time so little Timmy can have Nikes and iPods. That kind of thing.

I have done full time work/full time college and part time work/full time college and now I'm a full time SAHM. When I was working I was fortunate to have family with my children, but I really missed a lot of really precious time with them and I regret it so much.

People are more important than things, and I think our society is failing to live that or teach that to our children.

I hope things work out for your friend re: the school situation, but I think it's sad for the little ones that they get a big, fabulous house instead of time with mommy.

I think it's admirable that you and your wife have made the choice to sacrifice for the good of your children.

OK, terp, gonna hit hard on this one.

I'm generally for vouchers, but the scenario you presented frankly does not get my sympathy.

First, you shouldn't buy more house than you can afford. They basically made what I would consider a piss poor financial decision and are now asking for a government bailout. Now, they may wind up netting from a sudden boom in the real estate market, but I doubt it. With increasing energy costs, "McMansions" are not likely to remain a big buying trend.

What these people are asking is symptomatic with why our government has become so wasteful. They are essentially asking the government to underwrite their "cake and eat it too" lifestyle, and the government can't cater to the special interests of every Tom, Dick, and Harry in the United States.

I've noticed most "conservatives" are only conservative until their favorite government program is cut. As homeschoolers, we had friends a few years back that divided over online charter schools. They were hard core "conservatives", but they didn't want to actually have to PAY for materials to teach their children at home, they thought it was their entitlement from the government. I've seen that so often that it annoys me.

I hope your friends don't wind up regretting their decision deeply, but I would say funding private school is probably the least of their problems.

If giving your kids a private school education is important to you, you make the sacrifices to do that. My parents weren't well off but they sent us to Catholic school and my sisters are doing the same thing. My boys go to public school and we haven't had major problems (there is no Catholic school in my town) but it is easier because we are in a small town. I think the only thing that would make me want to put my kids in private school or homeschool is if I felt that they were in physical danger going to their schools. The school system was one of our top considerations when we chose where to buy our home. If the schools aren't up to standard there, look for a home in another community.

Why do I have a problem with vouchers for school? I think the government already provides a free education if that isn't good enough for you, then you pay for it. I don't think there would be a mass exodus from public schools to private schools if they started education vouchers, it would just help the people already sending their kids to private school get a break. I think the majority of people who have kids in private school do so because of wanting religous instruction. I don't think we should take money from the public schools to subsidize other kids religous education. People who don't have children also pay property taxes. It's just part of contributing to the society you live in to educate the kids.

It also isn't really a fair comparison of the private schools to the public schools. They have much more leeway in kicking out problems students etc. In public school, they have to send them to an alternative school etc. They can't just give them the boot and be done with them like a private school can. Private schools are allowed to discriminate. Private schools don't have to take the TAKs test etc. And honestly I don't want my tax dollars going to a school that is teaching kids that Adam and Eve were riding a dinosaur in the garden of Eden.

I always had an issue when George Sr. would compare vouchers to the GI Bill. The difference there is that you have to pay to go to college whether it's a state school or private school. That's not so for elementary through high school education.

The other, more pressing issue from the other side of the coin is this:

If government MONEY goes to private schools, government CONTROL will follow. This means if your state law demands that you teach alternative lifestyles, or any other objectionable material, you will do it...or lose accreditation. Don't believe me? Let's look at the college level, shall we? Do you know how many colleges there are where you can't get federal financial aid because they refused to accept the compromises to gain accreditation? Quite a few. And a non accredited HS diploma would not be worth the paper it's printed on.

Why do I have a problem with vouchers for school? I think the government already provides a free education if that isn't good enough for you, then you pay for it. I don't think there would be a mass exodus from public schools to private schools if they started education vouchers, it would just help the people already sending their kids to private school get a break. I think the majority of people who have kids in private school do so because of wanting religous instruction. I don't think we should take money from the public schools to subsidize other kids religous education. People who don't have children also pay property taxes. It's just part of contributing to the society you live in to educate the kids.

To cycle back around on the original topic, I'm gonna pick on the statement above just a bit.  (Sorry Locamama, but got to do it).

(And for the record, I still don't excuse the spending of money on the McMansions, which I believe is a problem for many who continue to over-reach for homes that they don't really need, all really in the name of keeping up or ahead of their neighbors.  I grew up in a mobile home for the early years of my life, then later in a single family home with a 12x12 bedroom.  Heck, I share an office that is 12x12 with a co-worker.  It is plenty big enough, and yet many people feel they need 20x20 for a bedroom with a closet that is bigger than my bathroom is )

Anyway, the part about 'free education' would be fine provided that the free education that you are getting is up to the levels that should be expected out of the school system(s).  What do you do when the level of the performance for that school system is near the bottom of entire country even as the cost per child is near the top of the spending in the country?  Why should a parent that wants their child to get a *good*, not even necessarily great, just adequate and above, education have to pay twice for it?  Why should they not get benefit from their tax money and why should their tax money be allowed to be wasted by a bloated school system that fails the students that are put through it??

You could perhaps argue that they benefit when their neighbors children go off and get an education so that they won't become wards of the state/federal government, but even that argument falls apart when you see how many of those students can't function in society and/or how many of those public school educated children in P.G. County Maryland, or D.C., wind up being tossed into jails, or parenting children that are paid for with welfare $$.

If the public schools are doing the job, great.  But I don't believe they need to continue to be a protected monopoly.  I'd rather see all parents offered choice.  If the Catholic schools can do a better job, for less money, than the public schools can, then why shouldn't the parents that want to send their children to that school but can't afford to because they've already given at the office have the same chance as someone else that happens to have more $$ or earn a higher salary?

If the answer is that we are supposed to be providing the best education for the children that follow us, then we should end the double taxation on the working class and give families with lower incomes the same chances to get the best educations as those in the upper income brackets.  I know that might exclude my former co-worker and her husband who are making too much money at this point, and probably were before, but it doesn't mean that wasting money on public education should continue.

If government MONEY goes to private schools, government CONTROL will follow. This means if your state law demands that you teach alternative lifestyles, or any other objectionable material, you will do it...or lose accreditation. Don't believe me? Let's look at the college level, shall we? Do you know how many colleges there are where you can't get federal financial aid because they refused to accept the compromises to gain accreditation? Quite a few. And a non accredited HS diploma would not be worth the paper it's printed on.

I understand that point, and it's a good one.  It is a potential slippery slope.  But it's also one that the government is already involved in.  The standards that come from things like NCLB apply to private schools too, or at least I believe they do.  Those minimized standardized test scores apply to all, not just the public school children.  I know you are more in tune with home schooling Gid, but do home schoolers get a pass on not having to pass basic competency exams in math and reading?

Very few states have these requirements for private schools (homeschools are private schools, and legally defined as such in many states). NCLB does not apply to private schools because NCLB is a FUNDING mandate, not an educational mandate.

I wouldn't characterize homeschoolers as "getting a pass", terp. Standardized tests are to provide accountability for funding, not to provide government regulation. If it were more than just a funding issue, you can bet your backside the ACLU would have acted on NCLB long ago. Because it is over funding, though, there's technically nothing unConstitutional about it because a district could elect to forego federal funding, much as NH elected to do so because they didn't want to enact mandatory seat belt laws.

Homeschoolers are actually held to a HIGHER degree of accountability, terp. If a student manages to fake their way through the public school system, the transcript with an embossed seal is sufficient to prove competence to many colleges, employers, etc. Despite the relatively high number of high school graduates who must take no credit remedial classes at the college level to make up for the deficiencies in their K12 education. For a homeschooler, many more supporting documents are usually tested, and their competence is CONSTANTLY called into question. Ever see a public school kid subjected to impromptu testing, ironically from a middle aged WalMart cashier who can't even COUNT CHANGE? I haveseen it with homeschool kids, terp, numerous times. And if I count the anecdotal episodes I've read about, I would number it in the hundreds.

Homeschoolers are also held to a 0% failure rate. Homeschooled kids aren't ALLOWED to be failures or people feel it reflects poorly on the homeschool environment. Try getting a 100% pass rate out of the public schools, terp. First thing you'll do is have Jackson and Sharpton at your door screaming racism. Yes, some homeschoolers DO fail, but EVERY SINGLE INCIDENCE of such is anecdotallly relayed to everyone the witness of these facts know.

My children's Sunday School teacher at the church here that ran us out spread the rumour that my children could not read simply because they did not WISH to read in front of their Sunday School class. They were being "tested", and unfortunately did not know that. I told one individual regarding this issue, "well, maybe if she had told them, 'read or I'll try to have you taken away from your mommy and daddy so you'll never see them again", the results would have been different.

Don't tell me we're not held accountable, terp. If public school students were held to such a high level of accountability, I dare say things would be MUCH different.

Sorry for the long winded response, terp, but this is a hot button issue: "why aren't homeschoolers, who receive NO tax money to homeschool, held to the same accountability as public schools who receive more than $10,000 per child per year".

As far as I'm concerned, if you want homeschools to be highly regulated, you SHOULD be funding our programs.

The standards that come from things like NCLB apply to private schools too, or at least I believe they do. Those minimized standardized test scores apply to all, not just the public school children. I know you are more in tune with home schooling Gid, but do home schoolers get a pass on not having to pass basic competency exams in math and reading?

Gid, I don't mean to give you a hard time, but are you perhaps needing some new reading glasses?

I am not for a second implying that home school kids, or kids that go to private schools get a pass.  That was why I asked the question.  The point was that all kids are held to standards, not just the ones in public schools.  If there are no measurements of any kind, then we don't know how well our kids are doing.

If not standardized tests, then certainly other standards of measures apply.  You have just basically argued the same thing, saying that home schooled children are asked to meet measures that public school children normally can't meet.  That was my point too.

Students in private schools and home schooled children typically blow away the likes of the students we see in public schools.  For an example, look at the recently held spelling bee (National?) that was just this last week.  Where were the best students in that competition from?  Home school or private schools.  I believe there was at least one public school representative, but that was it.  Maybe another that I didn't notice or that wasn't talked about in the news.

In anycase, certainly the majority of the students that were in that national competition wouldn't have been thanking their public school teachers since they'd never had any.

So, again, why would the public school system be entitled to your money?  Why can't you have that money back to spend on books, multimedia materials, or anything else you would want to do a better job (if that is even possible) of home schooling children with it??

A better question is why does the public school system exist as it does?

Why are they entitled to my money? For the same reason my state sales tax goes to pay for roads in Dallas on which I will probably never drive. Because someone in the past decided that education was the responsibility of the government. If we are going to make it the responsibility of the government, it needs to be funded.

I have explained my position on this before, terp. If I were given tax dollars to fund my homeschool, I could very easily run a lucrative scam. Think about it. I have three children of school age and a fourth nearing it. Even if I received HALF the funding of public school students, I'd have a pretty chunk of money to figure out how to spend every year. And believe me, I could find legitimate ways to spend it.

You are also not calculating the tremendous increase in taxes. For private school and homeschool students to be added to the public funding rolls, there would need to be extra revenue raised, not just to pay the stipends, but to add extra administration in many districts to handle the increase. And religious instruction in America would be dead in the water the day an atheist registered their child at a parochial school.

Your friends' attitude is to me indicative of the worrisome trend towards an entitlement society. They don't want to be part of the "unwashed masses", but they want the government to pay so that their children don't have to sit next to the son of a fry cook in Calculus. That to me is the epitome of elitism.

The phrasing of your question implied it, terp. You first used the phrase "get a pass". I didn't.

If you had asked "are standardized tests mandatory for homeschoolers and private schoolers?" that would have been an unbiased question. The answer to THAT question is "it varies". In Texas (and in many other states), the answer to that is "No". However, it is a fool of a parent who does not use some yardstick in their children's education, be it privately administered standardized tests (not the state tests because a state that does not require standardized test scores should not have access to them; there are many excellent standardized tests such as the Iowa Basic Skills test that are both excellent barometers and privately controlled) or other testing methods. We need to have some way of measuring how we are progressing towards our educational goals.

If the school isn't up to standard then the parents need to get involved and demand more from their schools, run for the school board, show up for meetings, call their congressperson etc. I also say that as a parent, part of what you are chosing when you chose to live somewhere is what school system your kids are going to. If you have to drive 20 extra miles to work to live somewhere with a decent school system, then that's what you do if that is important to you.

I don't see this as paying twice. Like I said that is part of owning property, paying property taxes for the schools whether or not you even have children attending school. If you children are grown, you still pay the tax. If you don't have children, you still pay the tax. People who chose to put their kids in private school are NOT paying double. They are chosing to spend their money on private school for their kids.

We pay taxes for jails that we aren't using, should I get a refund because no one in my family has ever been to jail? We pay taxes for roads we don't drive on, should I get a refund for the highway project that I don't personally need? You get my point.

After the immigration issue, it's good to get back on an issue where we agree, loca...lol!

yep, but I have an article cooking about what a huge mistake the border fence is - so then we can argue again.

Not really. I believe we need to control the border but I think a border fence (note: something distinctly different from property owners erecting fences on THEIR property) is a pretty silly idea.

"Stupid Mongolians. You tear down my City Wall"

The current school system was never made to produce good students. This article gives a good overview: Link

I never felt I was getting a good education when I attended high school and fought with the teachers over that fact. I learned more by studying on my own and spending time in the library. All the school system meant for me was a place I had to be during the day, more like a jail then anything else.

Just to clarify a few things, my former co-worker isn't asking for vouchers or any other money (other than income) to send her kids to private schools.   It is me, and me only, that is asking why parents (and non-parents for that matter) are asked to pay taxes for supporting failing schools systems when other alternatives exist that do the job better at lower cost.

I still hold to that point.  If other alternatives are available that do the job a lot better then why should the public continue to have to pay into public school systems?  After the fact it seems that all we are really doing is paying for a less than adequate day-care system for our children, and that would mean that public schools (in P.G. County Maryland and D.C. as examples.  Add Baltimore city in there as well, btw) are:

• poor choices for education since they consistently fail to produce on standardized tests
• poor choices for even day-care systems for our children since the schools can't seem to stop the violence, can't keep out drugs, etc.

I see the comments above about getting involved politically, but all of the political activism in the world hasn't changed the schools in D.C., Baltimore, P.G. County, etc.  These systems continue to drain off tax money while underperforming their neighbors, and while failing to even think of coming close to private school systems that sit not that far away.

The private school systems tend to be lagging in infrastructure, using older buildings, and sometimes older books and other materials, but consistently beat the bejeezus out of the public school systems when measurements are made (test results, etc.)

I see Gids point about the potential for abuse if home schoolers were permitted to take the money out of the public coffers, and understand those points.  It would be difficult, if not impossible to let home schoolers get all of their money back to use for educating their children at home (because of the supervision and oversight that would be needed to make sure that the money was spent on education and not other things).  But it doesn't mean that we shouldn't perhaps try some means of making sure that the tax money that is supposed to go to educating our children does so in the best possible manner -- meaning that it is done without wasting the kinds of money we are wasting on school systems that are currently best looked at as systems that are ready to be knocked down completely so we can start all over again.

I realize that a large part of the problem in a place like P.G. County is the residents and their families.  The people that don't seem to care about educations and aren't ever really going to perform at an adequate level.  They drag down the results for the rest of the populace in so many ways.  Should we leave them and their neighbors destined to failure?  No.  But should we continue to pour hundreds of millions, if not billions of dollars into school systems that just can't get it right and just keep screaming for more, more, and more of our money so that they can finally make the one change (in their mind and arguments) that would fix it all?

Considering we have games like baseball where you get 3 strikes and you are out, and that we have football with 4 chances to make the first down so you can keep showing progress on the way down the field with some sort of score destined to happen or be stopped, and considering that in the jurisprudence system you get 3 strikes and you are out, just how many strikes do these school systems needed before they are tossed to the wayside and we get serious about educating our youth??

I think the government already provides a free education if that isn't good enough for you, then you pay for it. I

The situation of your friends aside, This is the only argument I have seen against vouchers here (I know there are others, but no one has voiced them).  And the logic in this one is woefully flawed.  It is not free!  Nothing the government does is free.  And Vouchers are not "giving" money to anyone.  It is promoting competition so that the existing entities providing the service will learn how to compete more effectively for the dollars.  Something we do not have at this point.  And that is why public education is a crap shoot.  There is no incentive to make it any better.