TexasCHLforum.com

Wow, I'm going to have to tell my daughter's Latin teacher at Anderson HS he doesn't exist.

Education is a banquet. The food is there all along the wall. You go over, spoon some onto your plate and eat it.

If you don't eat and starve to death, should we blame the cook and the people who set out the food?

Yet if kids don't pay attention and don't learn anything, somehow that's the teacher's fault?

Obviously Logic 101 isn't being taught either.

cb1000rider wrote:

FML wrote:I'm disappointed but not surprised how many people are in favor of handouts when the money would go into their pockets. I'm not surprised because it's the main reason why Texas is $269 Billion in debt and the federal government is $17 Trillion in debt. I think we're past the point of safe return.

FML

I agree in the general context. The sheep will vote the person into office that panders to the benefits that mean the most to them as long as they don't have to pay more for those benefits.

panem et circenses

Dori wrote:Another big problem is the teacher unions. People should be free to join unions if they want, but no employer should be forced to engage in collective bargaining. Employers, including schools, should be able to hire and promote based on performance rather than seniority or other union mandates. They should be able to end the employment of unsatisfactory workers. Especially in Texas.

No, public employees being paid with tax dollars should be prohibited by law from being in a union. Government employee unions are legalized extortion enterprises. They want to be in a union, go teach at a private school or work in the private sector. A private school can't charge whatever it wants, only what the market will bear. The government does not have this incentive to control costs.

jmra wrote:If Texas wasn't spending an unholy amount of money on athletics programs education would be much less expensive and IMHO much more productive.

That's part of it. Another part of it is administrative costs, with school administrators drawing ridiculous salaries for what they do. Our little Port Isabel high school principal was pulling down $60 K plus vehicle and expenses way back in 1973. Another part of it is glamorous and unnecessary school facilities. I can't believe how many small towns around here have brand new huge school facilities that are absolutely unnecessary for imparting knowledge. It seems to me that as the quality of education has declined the quality of the facilities has skyrocketed.

jmra wrote:As long as people who do not own property are allowed to vote on such matters it will become more difficult to stop them.
BTW, the sole purpose of the new school is to bring the athletic program back down to 4A.

Exactly. The whole notion that people without property can vote to extract more money from property owners is absurd on its face. As is the notion that people who are on welfare and can't support themselves get to vote to extract money from those of us who can.

cb1000rider wrote:In the context of education, however, even if you don't have kids, you've likely received a public education yourself. Part of that education was funded by taxpayers that didn't have kids. Someone else paid for your education. Now you're helping to pay for someone else.

Oh please....I didn't "receive" a public education. I was forced to go to the public schools. Going to school is mandatory by law. You don't get a choice. It's not a gift if you can't refuse it. So, IOW, your argument is that since I was forced to go and someone else was forced to pay, I should now be forced to pay too? That's pretty weak.

Now of course we have the state's "permission" to homeschool --oh, and I feel so free--- but we're still forced to pay for a product we don't receive. And given the increasingly feral youth population, the fact that the US ranks near the bottom of developed countries in educational achievement across the board, and the entitlement crowd, the "societal benefit" argument is getting harder to make.

The thing is, I did homeschool my kids. They did exceptionally well by every academic measure in college. And you know what? I didn't spend anywhere near the amount of money I paid in taxes during this period. Not even close. The public school system is a giant tax sucking enterprise and that money is going to everyone and everything but a real education for children.

VMI77 wrote:

cb1000rider wrote:In the context of education, however, even if you don't have kids, you've likely received a public education yourself. Part of that education was funded by taxpayers that didn't have kids. Someone else paid for your education. Now you're helping to pay for someone else.

Oh please....I didn't "receive" a public education. I was forced to go to the public schools. Going to school is mandatory by law. You don't get a choice. It's not a gift if you can't refuse it. So, IOW, your argument is that since I was forced to go and someone else was forced to pay, I should now be forced to pay too? That's pretty weak.

Besides, what about second-generation homeschoolers or private schoolers? Are we suddenly exempt because we didn't "receive" a government education? If so, I've got a lot of tax refunds coming to me... but I suspect that check is not in the mail.

My understanding of the theory behind tax-funded education is that it is to the benefit of society at large to ensure an educated population. It's not about who got what and now it's your turn to pay into the system. You're paying for the public good of not being surrounded by illiterate idiots. Whether or not we're getting what we pay for... well, there's the rub.

Exactly. Vouchers would be for the benefit of individuals, not the public good.

I don't get vouchers for Amazon if I don't use the public library.

bayouhazard wrote:Exactly. Vouchers would be for the benefit of individuals, not the public good.

I don't get vouchers for Amazon if I don't use the public library.

Our school system right now benefits very few. Those who need help are passed along and passed over, those who can advance are not permitted to. As for a public benefit to not having ignoramuses around, so far the failure rate is real high for what we are paying for.

The public is made up of individuals. If the public library only had 19 books and five of them were on car mechanics I'd say those who wanted to learn about elephants and were paying taxes should be given a amazon voucher.

mamabearCali wrote:

bayouhazard wrote:Exactly. Vouchers would be for the benefit of individuals, not the public good.

I don't get vouchers for Amazon if I don't use the public library.

Our school system right now benefits very few. Those who need help are passed along and passed over, those who can advance are not permitted to. As for a public benefit to not having ignoramuses around, so far the failure rate is real high for what we are paying for.

The public is made up of individuals. If the public library only had 19 books and five of them were on car mechanics I'd say those who wanted to learn about elephants and were paying taxes should be given a amazon voucher.

In reality, choice only applies to a few things, and those things rarely are something that would improve a situation. Why doesn't choice apply to our children's education?

Anygunanywhere

bayouhazard wrote:Exactly. Vouchers would be for the benefit of individuals, not the public good.

I don't get vouchers for Amazon if I don't use the public library.

But if your library doesn't have the book you want, you can ask them to buy it or pick it up on inter-library loan and there are decent odds they'll accommodate you.

mamabearCali wrote:If the public library only had 19 books and five of them were on car mechanics I'd say those who wanted to learn about elephants and were paying taxes should be given a amazon voucher.

From each according to his ability. To each according to his need.

From Texas Tribune.

http://www.texastribune.org/2014/02/25/ ... also-some/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

VMI77 wrote: Oh please....I didn't "receive" a public education. I was forced to go to the public schools. Going to school is mandatory by law. You don't get a choice. It's not a gift if you can't refuse it. So, IOW, your argument is that since I was forced to go and someone else was forced to pay, I should now be forced to pay too? That's pretty weak.

You gonna argue that we shouldn't force kids to go to school? That's going to work out well for the USA long term.

My point is simply that if you received or were forced to attend public education someone else paid for your education. And as such, the injustice of paying for someone elses kids should be a little mitigated. Those who don't have kids are a little in-dignified, but they seem to forget that someone else helped pay for their education if they went to public school. If they didn't go to public school, then I understand why they might feel cheated and overtaxed.

Before that causes too much smoke, remember that I support your right to home school or private school your kids. And I think that the dollars that should support their education should be funneled into the educational choice that parents make. So in summary, I think that tax dollars should fund mandatory education, but parents should get to decide what that choice of education is and direct those dollars towards it. So long as that education meets some reasonable minimum standard.

You gonna argue that we shouldn't force kids to go to school? That's going to work out well for the USA long term.

Its important to follow the educational juggernaut that is Pakistan...