Should the government subsidize private education?

Question

To encourage parents to send their children off to high quality private schools and away from the failing public system?

Answer 1

Yes, because obviously our public education system isn't working and No Child Left Behind only made things worse not better.

Answer 2

It cracks me up how many people so far have pointed the fingers at public education, yet when it comes time to support it, no one wants to do that. NCLB is a bad law. It places ALL the blame on schools and teachers, and zero responsibility on parents or the community. It takes all involved working together in order for education to work. What you are talking about, is exactly what George W. wants to pass nationwide. They are called vouchers. If you don't like the quality of education that your district provides, and if you think the quality of teachers is so horrible, then you have two choices. The first choice you have is the power to change it. Run for the school board. When you see how things actually work, you may change your mind. However, parents also need to take part. Maybe if the state charged parents $25 a day for missing school, and they cannot afford to allow their child to miss 70-100 days out of the 180 days of student attendance, then maybe they will get their child's butt to school. When parents realize, that they cannot just ask their kid if they have homework, they actually have to ask to see the homework and make sure it is done. When a community realizes, that spending a few hundred dollars a year more in property taxes, is more important than spending $2000 each on playoff tickets, then the educational system will improve. I know there are a few school districts that spend $15,000 per student per year. Most districts only spend 4-7 and poorer districts spend less than 4. It's not even across the country, but that's where the community should get involved. Tenure does not protect teachers from being fired. A Tenured teacher can still be let go, but the administration has to be willing to put the paperwork time in, and the proof of poor teaching in order to do so. Thank you for asking a question, rather than shooting your opinions out there before you really know what is ACTUALLY going on like many people do. Read the letters to the editor in your local paper. Most people are quick to point a finger, and they don't know the whole story. Should the government subsidize private education? ABSOLUTELY NOT!! Private schools in many cases are not any better than many public schools. The second choice you have; If you don't like the school system where you live, the wonderful thing about this country is, you have the power to move.

Answer 3

First, I disagree with your characterization of this being a "government subsidy."

The money for education comes from the people through state, local (property tax) and federal taxes. It is the people's money not the governments. Too many people in our country do not understand this.

Second, I believe in absolute freedom of choice in education. A parent should have the option of public, private or homeschool. Those parents who choose to opt out of public school are discriminated against by the system. These parents still pay taxes that are used to fund the public schools but derive absolutely no benefit. It is a modern day classic example of taxation without representation.

Those who cry that desperately needed money will be taken away from the public schools...

- money is obviously not the answer - spending on public schooling has sky rocketed over the past few decades and yet the results are worse than ever (can anyone say 40% drop out rate?).
- some schools (new jersey I think) spend as much as $15k or $16k per year per pupil. That is enough to send every one of those kids to a state college. Most of that money never actually reaches the classroom level.

Parents: Think what you could do for your child and his / her education with $15,000 per year!

The public school system is a failed socialist experiment. The person (Dewey, look him up) who is considered the "father of the modern public school system" explicitly argues in his "scholarly publication" that publicly funded state run schools should have as their the primary purpose social / socialist indoctrination. I'm not kidding. The stated intent is to create an easy to manage cookie cutter society where everyone thinks alike.. If you look at public schools from this perspective, they have been wildly successful.

Answer 4

No, "The Government" should not be involved in the process of education at all. Education in the US was pretty good until the Department of Education became so deeply involved and the various Teacher's Unions made it impossible to terminate the employment of incompetent teachers. If we could stop using the government schools as social service agencies and return them to the job of providing a high school level education (as opposed to the 6th grade education they now provide) most of the problems associated with government schools would disappear. Government involvement has provided us with such absurdities as "Zero Tolerance" which equates to "I don't have to make decisions, just follow directions no matter how ridiculous they may be", and "No child left behind" when there are always children who should be "left behind" others, since all people are not created with equal capabilities.

Answer 5

No. The entire public educational system should be forced to compete for students. The government money should be tied to the student and families should be able to choose which school they put their child in. If a school starts to fall apart due to poor management/teachers a family should be able to take their child out of that school and put them in one that is doing better and in so doing also redirect which school the government gives the money designated for their student. Poor administration, teachers and teaching methods would be forced out quickly. This is how they do it in many areas in Europe and is probably why the students over there are scoring higher than ours.

Answer 6

it could actually be nased on income, so some families get no longer something in the event that they earn too plenty, some families get finished training paid for because of the fact they could't handle to pay for it (college determination must be each parent's precise for their toddler, inspite of income, and surprisingly in undesirable college districts) & some get a partial subsidy because of the fact they do no longer earn plenty yet they do earn sufficient to pay some training. The subsidy for low income families that get an entire training stipend should additionally incorporate uniforms.

Answer 7

No, that is stupid.

Parents make a choice - to have a government-funded education or pay through the nose. Why should my taxes subsidise someone who is willingly paying for their child's tuition?

I would rather see that money invested in public schools. Maybe then they wouldn't (as you put it) "fail".

Answer 8

latest pdk gallup poll which asked respondents to grade education: 60 percent against vouchers. (table 16)

grade your public schools: 45% give A or B
grade other peoples schools: 16% A or B

the problem is perception and politics. It is so easy to blame other people.. how about getting to the root of the problem? we have a heterogeneous society, poverty has been shown to be the biggest indicator of school success or failure.

Answer 9

no, that is why it is private
the school system is failing because people aren't doing
their jobs and pretending they don't know how to solve
the problems in each individual school.