Should parentspay for their children's education, and be able to choose schools? More like a business model? Perhaps if money was on the line, parents would be more involved in their children's education, and teachers would be competing for jobs, instead of being tenured? Also, it would release a tax burden on those who don't have children. What do you think?
2006-11-15 02:31:09 · 10 answers · asked by hichefheidi 6 in Politics & Government ➔ Other - Politics & Government
Sliding scale would be a possibility for payment
2006-11-15 02:38:33 · update #1
there are many not for profit businesses that perform much better than government sponsored programs. Salvation Army comes to mind
2006-11-15 02:39:50 · update #2
Yes. They're already paying. I pay ungodly school tax and then I have to pay for everything in the class and everything my son does at the school. I think the entire school system should be privatized. The bureaucracy is wasting the money anyway. Then we're left with teachers "teaching for the test". I just had a meeting with my son's teacher and she said she had to use the "PLORE method" to learn to read, because studies show it makes them score better on the state test. It also teaches them to hate reading, but who cares? It's a mess. I could pay for private with our school tax money. It's enough.
Did I mention I also have to sell unwanted junk to my friends for their fundraiser? I might of forgot that. Do I seem upset? LOL
2006-11-15 02:47:31 · answer #1 · answered by MEL T 7 · 2⤊ 0⤋
I think what's going on now is perfect. I can afford to send my daughter to private school. It's privately funded, and I can afford it. Even if you can't afford it, there are tuition and scholarship programs available for private schools that people really aren't aware of. If your kid goes to a public school, and you do worry about the quality of education, then choose which school you want your kid to do to. My daughter is in a Pre-K program for advanced three year olds in a publice school right now (because the private school does not offer this program), but the school I chose is not in my "section" of the school district. I have to pay a little more, but it's worth it. The teachers there are great there and she gets great attention there and the kids are great there as well.
I think that if parents want to be involved, then they will get involved. I think that the reason why parents CAN'T be more involved is because most homes are two-income houses. There isn't a full-time mom at home anymore to go to all of the mixers, PTA meetings, every parent/teacher confrence, to dedicate tons of time after school is out. They are both busy with work and involved in their own lives, as opposed to their children's. It just really depends on the parents' dedication with their children's education. I don't think it will matter how much somone pays for their kids' schooling, it's just another "bill" that they have to pay.
Hope that this adds a little insight.
2006-11-15 03:10:17 · answer #2 · answered by Summer 5 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Taxes without a doubt.
A business model is about making a profit
Education is about imparting skills and knowledge so they can live a full and productive life, so contributing to society.
As soon as you mix business into the equation of educating, then children are no longer the priority but the $$$$$$$
2006-11-15 02:36:31 · answer #3 · answered by pulldeplug 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
All parents should not be made to pay. Not everyone can afford an education for their children. In fact, they encourage their children to do good in grade school so that they can get scholarships to pay for the increasingly expensive costs of college. It is a good idea to have teachers compete, but not to have parents compete (financially) just to get their child a basic education.
2006-11-15 02:35:08 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
Right now tax dollars are paying for illegal immigrants children putting a burden on the school systems, there should be laws passed to charge the countries that allow their citizens to cross our borders illegally, Putting the countries responsible for their actions.
But with Bush's No kid left behind, we will be stuck with flipping the bill
2006-11-15 02:43:01 · answer #5 · answered by AD 3 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Well as far as I know, The Tax payer funds ALL of higher and lower education. We pay taxes each and every year to build or repair schools. In addition we have to also pay to send our children to the higher levels of education. Do not be fooled by so called grants and scholarships.
2006-11-15 02:36:20 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
The only problem is a lot of poor or crappy parents can't or won't pay for their kids to learn. And later when those kids can't work because they are illiterate and uneducated -we will end up paying for them as well in jails and food lines. And it will compound to the point where we have this huge uneducated underclass of tax-drainers. I don't like public education but it seems like the lesser of two evils.
2006-11-15 02:34:15 · answer #7 · answered by Average Joe 3 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Education benefits all of society, so all of society should support it. If it were the fiunancial responsibility of the parents, then poor people would opt out of education and perpetuate a permanent underclass.
2006-11-15 02:34:22 · answer #8 · answered by kreevich 5 · 2⤊ 0⤋
Great question.
Tenure has protected lousy teachers and has made it nearly impossible to fire them.
Teacher unions have damaged the quality of education severely.
2006-11-15 02:33:54 · answer #9 · answered by C = JD 5 · 1⤊ 2⤋
and what happens with the poor, who cant afford it? they just get left behind, living their lives out stupid and uneducated
2006-11-15 02:34:40 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋