Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="reanjr" data-source="post: 2040469" data-attributes="member: 20740">Not in my experience, and for good reason.  Throwing more money at the problem is a case of diminishing returns.  Taxes need to be better appropriated, not increased.Think of the following scenario:We abolish almost all taxes related to education and semi-privatize the entire system (the only economic control is that schools support an income-progressive system).  A very low-level core curiculum is mandated covering only the basics of what are absolutely necessary skills in life (arithmetic, reading, writing [but not creatively or analytically], scientific method, and possibly some life skills).  Anything else is up to the individual school and/or parent.  Public state schools are set up with the remaining drastically reduced budget to teach only the core curriculum, and to supply learning materials (books, computers, internet, whatever...) for independent study.Now you think that those (economically) poor parents are all about putting more money into a public education system that consistently produces high school graduates who can not read above 4th grade level?  I don't think so.From my discussions with parents, the combination of the following two conclusions would be the majority, especially among the poor who higher taxes hurt the most:1. I can save a lot of money by keeping my child home and schooling her myself.2. I want what's best for my child, but let's be realistic; he's gonna end up working in a factory anyway, just like his mom and I, and his grandfather, and so on.  The state run school will be good enough.  If my son is smart, then he can independently study anything else he wants while he's there and really make something of himself.  Meanwhile, I can save some money to better provide for my family those things that are ACTUALLY necessary, and maybe even save up a bit for my son's college, which I would never be able to afford if I sent him to a non-state school, no matter how good he does in school.(by the way, I don't want to take credit for this idea; I am merely espousing the ideas a local politician had in the last election)I'm a bit incredulous.  People teach because they want to teach, not to earn money.  Unless you are telling me they absolutely could not afford food and shelter, then they probably weren't the kinds of teachers I'd want teaching my children anyway.  As I said before, this doesn't mean I disagree with increasing teacher salaries, but I have never heard of a public school teacher who actually could not afford to teach (I know I had several teachers that commuted over an hour each way to work because the school was in an area they could not afford).  Were these private school teachers, perchance?  I know I've heard of some of them making $15k/yr.Most jobs are paid for with money.  Some with prestige.  A few with power.  Teachers (policemen, fireman, etc.) are paid with the opportunity to make a difference.</blockquote>

Verification