I certainly agree with the idea of not taking the taxes in the first place, but I don't think it even has to go that far. If we assume that the government should play a part in educating the masses (and I believe it should), and we assume that doing so benefits everyone and society as a whole (and I believe it does), then redistributing the cost of education amongst the general population is a pretty good system. Maybe not a perfect one, but certainly not a bad one.
This is my problem: If my child in a public school costs the state $1.00 then taking them out of public school costs the state -$1.00 (give or take - I realize there are some costs that shrink with higher volumes). So instead of contributing that $1.00 ( or even a fraction of it) towards my child's private education, you would just deny them any funding at all. Deny them the very same funding that every other child is entitled to? It makes no sense. You're essentially telling me, "yes the government pays for everyone's education as long as it's done our way. Otherwise you get nothing, nada, zilch, zero"
So when I say, "give me my money back," I really mean, "spend that money on my child's education--wherever that may be." Obviously there would need to be a system in place to make sure that the money isn't being spent on cheeseburgers, but that's what vouchers are all about.
So tell me, please, why a kid going to a private school shouldn't receive the same funding as one going to public school. Is the kid in private school less important to society? Does his education matter less? Is the private school inherently inferior?
*from my ranting to a public school teacher*
Brothers On Maps
2 days ago
The main problem is that the government likes to meddle. If they give money to "private schools" they will want to meddle in them and then they essentially become public schools, and that's what you're trying to avoid in the first place.
ReplyDelete