does every american citizen deserve the right of free state K-12 education?

[soulcougher73]

I'd like all education to it be paid by taxes, but college and on is not mandatory.

 

[LunarRay]

When I become dictator schools will neither be free or compulsory. Children will have to sigh up to go to school, get a child labor work permit, sign a contract and be paid to attend school. The parents will not be able to touch the child's income and the amount earned will be spelled out in the contract, more income for a more ambitious work load and required pass on pass or fail tests. The curriculum will consist of basic three Rs liberal arts civics history, financial planning and business plus electives in personal fields of interest. High School will include vocational training with job placement, small business creation, and college prep for advanced degrees in science industry and academics, medicine, military officer training, etc. Schools will be intimately connected to entities seeking employees to coordinate training with actual needs.

Each of us has a passion for something it seems to me. A school ought to be a place where you can openly challenge, falsify or better understand some body of information the student garners elsewhere. I never went to school to learn what I should learn... well, except for the catechism which was basically nothing more than questions with the answers one had to commit to memory and that was more of a hoot for me than a learning process cuz I spent time in the library.
Fill the hands of kids with all the books they can carry and let them evolve to their passion. Just cuz someone can do math with ease don't mean they should be an engineer or go to MIT or Cal tech and study physics. They might just find their lot in life is Music or Economics.
Parents ought to be teachers in the early years giving THEIR kids the tools needed to start the process. Make reading fun and teach them to challenge everything... ya learn a lot building an argument for or against something.

I imagine it is really nifty knowing ya know something and know it with out doubt regardless of the opposition to that notion... I suppose.

 

[waggy]

Kids need discipline and time to study, not McDonalds and Xbox.

Unlike the "whatever it takes" mindset of successful countries, American's are worried mostly about cost and the social nurturing of their delicate flowers. It's often said that poor parenting is a major factor in school failure, so remove the parents.

Sure they need discipline. but taking them away from family is not how you do it. Also just because some people are poor parents does not mean you get to take everyone's kids away.

This is a terrible idea.

 

[Humpy]

This is a terrible idea.

I thought it was okay.

 

[BonzaiDuck]

"The Theory of Public Finance" should be ideologically neutral. We simply acknowledge two viewpoints: small role of government versus expanded role.

So there are "pure public goods" and "pure private goods." An ice-cream cone is a private good. The person owning and holding the drippy mess can choose whether or not to share it.

Things like public reservoirs and dams, highways, the court system, a public park and/or swimming pool -- those are your public goods on the "purer" end of the spectrum. I can't simply sell you a piece of concrete so you can drive from LA to Vegas. These things are more or less indivisible.

K-12 public schools -- probably K-8 at one time -- were your "Little House on the Prairie" -- your little red schoolhouse bought and paid for with local taxation.

Around the middle of the 19th century, the major figure responsible for taking religion out of the public schools was a Catholic Bishop in New York. Evangelicals were teaching his flock of newly-arrived Irish immigrants, and filling their minds with their own views of Christian doctrine. The Bishop organized his flock to become a major political force, and they were able to pass legislation in Albany that banned the teaching of religion in public schools.

Then sometime around the 1920s, a Columbia U school administration professor promoted the idea of the modern-day high-school, which in a way paralleled the notion of a school as a factory -- the larger, the better.

And through all that history, with immigrants flocking to the USA, it was seen that public schools were a useful tool of patriotic indoctrination.

So what type of "good" is it? Public? Private? or something in between? After all, if I get any type of education, I would be the primary beneficiary. On the other hand, we already mentioned the "socialization" factor. Add to that the value to any given state's economy.

I think state universities were something first envisioned by Jefferson, and U of Va -- maybe the Charlottesville campus -- was among the first such institutions. After that, the land-grant universities.

Thought I'd throw those perspectives out there as adding to the discussion, so I can come back in a couple days to see how it's going.

 

[BoberFett]

Do they deserve the right to an education?

No.

But Americans are so magnanimous that we offer it to them anyway.

 

[Sheik Yerbouti]

Do they deserve the right to an education?

No.

But Americans are so magnanimous that we offer it to them anyway.

why don't they?

 

[glenn1]

why don't they?

Because it's not a right if it requires someone else to pay the costs before you can exercise it; there are no costs associated with actual rights like speech, freedom of religion, etc. Public education is more properly called an entitlement, of a type the nation has decided to supply universally akin to how a public defender will be provided to those accused of and on trial for a crime.

 

[bshole]

Because it's not a right if it requires someone else to pay the costs before you can exercise it; there are no costs associated with actual rights like speech, freedom of religion, etc. Public education is more properly called an entitlement, of a type the nation has decided to supply universally akin to how a public defender will be provided to those accused of and on trial for a crime.

Free universal education is an enormous benefit to the state. It is an absolute necessity in order for a first world nation to flourish.

 

[glenn1]

Free universal education is an enormous benefit to the state. It is an absolute necessity in order for a first world nation to flourish.

Not meeting the requirements to call it a right doesn't speak to what its value is. You're correct that it provides great value to the society, perhaps moreso than some rights the citizens likewise enjoy.

 

[WHAMPOM]

What do you believe?

I will tell you what I know. The free system we have now was created for the benefit of the captains of industry that wanted to educate the common man enough to work in their factories. Are you ignorant of history, education was for the rich.

 

[BonzaiDuck]

Not meeting the requirements to call it a right doesn't speak to what its value is. You're correct that it provides great value to the society, perhaps moreso than some rights the citizens likewise enjoy.

Continuing this dialog, you could say these things about public libraries, which had been Franklin's brain-child. Or postal service -- also with the same origins.

Howsoever you perceive or imagine shortcomings in the way those types of services are funded or supplied, you still pay postage, which is closer to a price for the service as opposed to a user charge which attempts to approximate a price.

Public schools are primarily funded locally, to which is next added equalization aid or pass-throughs from the state, and then the federal programs from the top tier.

But it is abundantly obvious that an uninformed citizenry will fail any variant of a democratic government, and providing people the tools with which to inform themselves is essential. The same logic informs provision of libraries and communication. And I'd take a look at the Federalist papers, works by Jefferson and others to see if they add anything to the discussion. Of course, it's telling that Jefferson spearheaded the phenomenon of state universities.

 

[boomerang]

Since everyone already has or had the opportunity of a K-12 education, at least until they reach the age in which they can legally drop out, the question is, who is to pay for their free education?

If the OP wants the Constitution amended to make it a right, somebody still has to pay for it. Who pays for all this free education? This would have to be determined before or in conjunction with the passing of the amendment so why not get ahead of the game and figure it out now? Who pays?

 

[Atreus21]

What do you believe?

No.

 

[BonzaiDuck]

Since everyone already has or had the opportunity of a K-12 education, at least until they reach the age in which they can legally drop out, the question is, who is to pay for their free education?

If the OP wants the Constitution amended to make it a right, somebody still has to pay for it. Who pays for all this free education? This would have to be determined before or in conjunction with the passing of the amendment so why not get ahead of the game and figure it out now? Who pays?

I thought I'd pretty much already explained that myself.

It's funded through county property taxes, and distributed among school districts. After that, there is State aid and the Federal pass-throughs for particular programs.

Because it's treated as a collective good -- and it does indeed have collective aspects, or every student would have his own teacher -- the local funding and taxation at least approximates support from those who also benefit. The other two layers are provided as an attempt at fairness, or to implement national priorities. If you're childless, retired and elderly, or choose to send your kids to Choate, the local Christian day-school or Catholic school, you still pay the taxes, but you pay taxes for a lot of things from which you may or may not benefit directly at the county level.

ADDENDUM: Let me explain my experience with this. In 1979, Congress passed the charter for the Dept. of Education. Immediately, the GOP was energized against it. They wanted so much to get rid of it. They argued that this would give the federal level control of local schools.

Now, at that time, there were in excess of some 100+ different federal education programs. Each and every one, or various groups of them, had their own individual grant-making and financial management group. There was a considerable waste of resources. And there would never be any way that the anti-federalists would abolish all those programs. At least under the department, all of these administrative functions were either completely or partially centralized under a single staff office. There was some consolidation of programs, even so.

YOu don't always get what you want, and especially you just can't have your way if everybody else wants something different.

 

[BoberFett]

why don't they?

Because nobody DESERVES to be given anything.

 

[boomerang]

I thought I'd pretty much already explained that myself.

It's funded through county property taxes, and distributed among school districts. After that, there is State aid and the Federal pass-throughs for particular programs.

Because it's treated as a collective good -- and it does indeed have collective aspects, or every student would have his own teacher -- the local funding and taxation at least approximates support from those who also benefit. The other two layers are provided as an attempt at fairness, or to implement national priorities. If you're childless, retired and elderly, or choose to send your kids to Choate, the local Christian day-school or Catholic school, you still pay the taxes, but you pay taxes for a lot of things from which you may or may not benefit directly at the county level.

I thought you said earlier you weren't going to be back for a couple of days yet here you are?

You didn't need to explain any of that to me, I know how schools are funded. My question was a simple one. The OP wants to know if people have a right to a free education. If it's free, who's paying for it? Very simple question. The question the OP raised wasn't should K-12 education be a right, it was should it be a right that is free. Right now, it's not free. I must assume that the OP wants it free. Who pays for it if it's free to me?

We have laws that dictate mandatory education in this country. So, why the desire to make it a "right"? What is the advantage to that? The option not to attend at all? Right now the cost of education for K-12 is distributed. If I'm no longer to have that cost assessed to me, who then pays? The OP is tying together making it a right and making it free. I'm just trying to understand how that would work because when I think of free that means no cost to me. Yet somebody is providing the good or service. There is a cost associated with that. Somebody is assuming those costs.

If K-12 education is going to be provided at no cost to me, no cash outlay on my part, who is assuming the costs associated with it.

I've run out of ways to ask the question.

 

[BurnItDwn]

I believe nothing is "free".

Children are not legally allowed to work jobs to pay for their own schooling.
Children's parents are often fuckups.

Therefore, it is in the best interests of society as a whole that all children should have access to a decent education. This may not guarantee a productive life, but it certainly provides a good foundation.

 

[BurnItDwn]

I believe nothing is "free".

Children are not legally allowed to work jobs to pay for their own schooling.
Children's parents are often fuckups.

Therefore, it is in the best interests of society as a whole that all children should have access to a decent education. This may not guarantee a productive life, but it certainly provides a good foundation.

 

[BonzaiDuck]

I thought you said earlier you weren't going to be back for a couple of days yet here you are?

You didn't need to explain any of that to me, I know how schools are funded. My question was a simple one. The OP wants to know if people have a right to a free education. If it's free, who's paying for it? Very simple question. The question the OP raised wasn't should K-12 education be a right, it was should it be a right that is free. Right now, it's not free. I must assume that the OP wants it free. Who pays for it if it's free to me?

We have laws that dictate mandatory education in this country. So, why the desire to make it a "right"? What is the advantage to that? The option not to attend at all? Right now the cost of education for K-12 is distributed. If I'm no longer to have that cost assessed to me, who then pays? The OP is tying together making it a right and making it free. I'm just trying to understand how that would work because when I think of free that means no cost to me. Yet somebody is providing the good or service. There is a cost associated with that. Somebody is assuming those costs.

If K-12 education is going to be provided at no cost to me, no cash outlay on my part, who is assuming the costs associated with it.

I've run out of ways to ask the question.

Why do I think this is silly? "There's no such thing as a free lunch," even if it's a "school lunch program." There's no such thing as "free."

Either the taxpayer pays, or the individual parent pays. Of course, what is the cost of "home-schooling?" There's still a cost with that approach. It's just not a cost in "dollars." You ever hear of something called the "economics of the household?"

If "free" means "no tuition" -- a "public" school -- everybody pays through taxes. You say you've run out of ways to ask the question; I've run out of ways to answer it.

This issue as to whether it's "a right," it seems to me there isn't any local jurisdiction in the country that doesn't require children to be in school. ONe way -- or the other. I'm even mystified myself: Does there have to be a "right," if schooling is compulsory?

 

[boomerang]

Why do I think this is silly? "There's no such thing as a free lunch," even if it's a "school lunch program." There's no such thing as "free."

Either the taxpayer pays, or the individual parent pays. Of course, what is the cost of "home-schooling?" There's still a cost with that approach. It's just not a cost in "dollars." You ever hear of something called the "economics of the household?"

If "free" means "no tuition" -- a "public" school -- everybody pays through taxes. You say you've run out of ways to ask the question; I've run out of ways to answer it.

This issue as to whether it's "a right," it seems to me there isn't any local jurisdiction in the country that doesn't require children to be in school. ONe way -- or the other. I'm even mystified myself: Does there have to be a "right," if schooling is compulsory?

Excellent! You've helped me make my point! In post #42 I said, "Dumb thread is dumb". They don't come much dumber than this one.

 

[BonzaiDuck]

Excellent! You've helped me make my point! In post #42 I said, "Dumb thread is dumb". They don't come much dumber than this one.

Ok . . . the thread . . . not my post.

"Free" means "tuition-free." Tuition-free public education.

It means we accept a collective responsibility for public schools. If it's a "right," it's a "right" like some politicians said that health-care is a right. And if it's compulsory, this . . . semantic exercise . . . is meaningless.

Maybe the OP was upset at his property-tax bill. Here in CA with the long-effective Proposition 13, people are now upset at the quality of education, even if they aren't happy with their property-tax bills. It was once a "world-class" education system.

Now, we've got graduates like Enrique Marquez, who insists that making pipe-bombs was a hobby. Then there was the millennial I met a few years ago. When I brought up the topic of "The Cold War," she said: "Oh! We studied that in school! We were fighting the Columnists."

I dunno . . . I never knew that George Will, William Safire or Maureen Dowd were enemies. . . . .