On Sat, Apr 29, 2006 at 07:41:47PM -0700, Steve Lamb wrote: > Christopher Nelson wrote: > > The same reason you should pay taxes for roads you don't drive > > on--because at all stages of life having an educated workforce benifits > > you, just as it benifits you for people (eg utility companies) to drive > > on roads you particularly don't use. Or would you rather not pay your > > doctor to pass high school anatomy and biology? > > That's all well and good except for one problem. I can tell when the > roads aren't working. My suspension goes to hell. I can convince other > people of the same by pointing to my crappy suspension. > > I also can tell when the public school system isn't working. But help me > if I try to convince others of that! The key word here is an educated public > is a benefit. I do not believe that is what public schooling is offering in > the least. As one poster said they believed they are educated in spite of the > public school system. I believe the same thing.
I believe I was educated through the public school system. Apparently we inherently differ on the quality of schooling that goes on, so more words would accomplish little. > > As to the free--I don't plan on having children before I can afford > > them, but that doesn't help the middle class who can't afford most > > private schools (the ones I've seen advertised aren't cheap), but > > can otherwise afford to raise children in a decent environment. Do you > > purport that you must be wealthy to raise children, or just well enough > > off? > > You're also pricing against a limited market. If the market were more > open then prices would fall as more would enter the market. On the flip side > if the parents aren't paying for public schooling via taxes one would presume > the money they save there could be applied to private schooling? It could be, but a more salient question might be, would it be applied to private schooling? There are people I know who despite the evidence they should, don't spend in retirement funds, etc., and probably would buy an extra case of beer instead of paying their kid's tuition. > BTW, just curious, have you compared private schooling to public schooling > when it comes to cost per pupil? The last time I checked (Sacramento, late > 90s) private schooling was cheaper per pupil. I have looked at private school costs in curiosity, but never really in the cost of public schools per pupil. Care to point me to where I could find that statistic? (I'm in California now, so the same type place you looked should work) > > Sure you can. Nothing's forcing you to have your kids in public > > schools. And shopping around for a good public school district is part > > of being a responsible parent if you can't afford/don't like private > > school. > > A good public school district. Which implies one can purchase a home in a > good district. Or do you believe only the wealthy can obtain a decent > education for their children? I lived in a good public school district with cheap housing, albeit in Kentucky where everything's cheaper, but it was still not one of the more expensive places we could have lived there. > > Plus, she was blatantly violating the schools policy (based on > > the secretary of the Department of Education) that you cannot teach > > religious tenets as matters of fact in the public school system. > > Now if we could only get political beliefs out of the school system and > get back to basics. I feel like I'm missing the point, but in case it's teaching political tenets as fact: on that I think we squarely agree. I've not heard people complaining about it, but it would be equally as reprehensible as religion -- Christopher Nelson -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] ----------------------------------------------------------------------- A memorandum is written not to inform the reader, but to protect the writer. -- Dean Acheson -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
