unionmom said:
Fair point with the difference between libraries and schools but you forget that the sports programs or other activities are not guaranteed in the constitution.
As for taking the taxes as well as your voice ... you still have a voice. How does your child not participating in the extra activities equal you not having a voice? That one confuses me. You absolutely can still advocate for improvements in the education available in the public schools. You still vote for the public offices involved in the school system.
You simply will not get me on the "if they aren't using it they should get the money back, if they're paying they should have full access" argument because there are lots of folks that live in any jurisdiction that never use the school system where they live but they still have to pay those taxes.
When parents make the choice to remove their child from public schools they are making the choice to remove their child from all of it, in my opinion.
All of this may very well end up being moot in the very near future if our schools have to keep tightening their belts. The "extras" are going to be on the chopping block before too much longer.
You're absolutely correct; sports in schools are not mandated by the constitution. Then why should tax dollars pay for sports period? Why not instead, have funraisers and the parents of participating students pay the total costs associated with playing?
When you go to a restaurant to eat and the service and the food does not meet your satisfaction; do you go there again? Maybe it was a bad night, so you return and give it a try and again the food and service does not meet your satiisfaction. Are you going to continue giving them your business in return for a poor product? I wouldn't. In fact, I would give another restuarant the opportunity to earn my money. They key word is earn.
BS is absolutely correct that public schools should be run like a business. Private schools are. They need to be in order to keep their classrooms full to stay in business. In order for them to stay in business, they ensure they have a curriculum that better prepares their students for college. If they don't, the parents pull their kids and send them elswhere and they are no longer earning that family's buisness. The more students they lose because their curriculum is not satisfactory, they more money they lose and if they don't make the necessary changes, that school won't be open very much longer.
Why shouldn't we be able to do the same thing with our public schools? If our public schools are not adequately preparing our children for college or the work place, then why should we continue to give them our money? What incentive do they have to fix the problem? They don't. All they give us are excuses. If we were allowed to take the money from what we pay into school and use it for a private school or home school program that has proven to be successful, the public schools will have no choice but to make the necessary changes to improve. If we continue to give them money, they're not going to fix anything.
A perfect example is the math curriculum. It's a failure. Our state school superintendent even said it was a failure, but what is he going to do about it? Nothing, absolutely nothing. Now tell me why I should be forced to continue to give public schools money when it's obvious they don't want to fix the problems they know to exist?