Eternal Vigilance!

[pieces o nine]

New Hampshire Lawmakers Pass Law Allowing Parental Objections To Curriculum

The Tea Party dominated New Hampshire Legislature on Wednesday overrode the governor's veto to enact a new law allowing parents to object to any part of the school curriculum.

The state House voted 255-112 and Senate 17-5 to enact H.B. 542, which will allow parents to request an alternative school curriculum for any subject to which they register an objection. Gov. John Lynch (D) vetoed the measure in July, saying the bill would harm education quality and give parents control over lesson plans.

"For example, under this bill, parents could object to a teacher's plan to: teach the history of France or the history of the civil or women's rights movements," Lynch wrote in his veto message. "Under this bill, a parent could find 'objectionable' how a teacher instructs on the basics of algebra. In each of those cases, the school district would have to develop an alternative educational plan for the student. Even though the law requires the parents to pay the cost of alternative, the school district will still have to bear the burden of helping develop and approve the alternative. Classrooms will be disrupted by students coming and going, and lacking shared knowledge."

The willful stupidity hydra rears another head.     

Living through a social change is always stressful, regardless of which side one backs. From what I've read of past changes, ordinary people fear that the dissension will split the group irrevocably, and I take heart from that. Perhaps we won't  be fissured into The United States of Canada and Jesusland, after all. But I wonder if there will be a worse alternative (from my perspective, at least): Jesusland, period.

[Scriblerus the Philosophe]

This is distinctly unTaddy of me, but this is going to be funny. And honestly, I only see it being an issue in the wealthier school districts (because well, the poorer ones don't have parents who can afford this shit and frankly too busy worrying about keeping a roof over their heads to care), and even then I predict steps will be taken (socially) to stop this because of the effect it'll have on test scores ('cause that ain't gonna change, no way no how) and so much rides on those - reputation, funding, etc. - that they'll do whatever they have to shut it down.

Living through a social change is always stressful, regardless of which side one backs. From what I've read of past changes, ordinary people fear that the dissension will split the group irrevocably, and I take heart from that. Perhaps we won't  be fissured into The United States of Canada and Jesusland, after all. But I wonder if there will be a worse alternative (from my perspective, at least): Jesusland, period.

I think the time window of us being able to cleave together is rapidly closing. And also, there are gonna be places that ARE Jesusland, period, and iirc, you and I both live in places that will be Jesusland.

[Swatopluk]

I doubt it will be about the history of France or Algebra
The former is likely not taught in the first place (beyond "the French are (immoral, hedonistic) cowards* and we always have to rescue their poor behinds from the Germans") and in the latter case it will not be the parents but the state lottery commission (and the local casino league) protesting the teaching of the theory of probability.

More likely it will be about the theories  of intelligent falling and design and the war of forced tentacle intrusion in the first half of the 1860ies.

*the technical term being 'cheese-eating surrender monkeys'

[Sibling DavidH]

Fromageophages inclinés à la capitulation.

[Sibling Zono (anon1mat0)]

Hey! I'm a fromageophage, perfectly willing to capitulate if victory isn't achievable and I'm not French! and I would move there in an split instant if it were feasible...

[Opsa]

I would live in France too because I am a lily-livered coward and damned proud of it! Plus, I love cheese and art.

Those Tea-Baggers sound like they have too much time on their hands.

It has been interesting now that my daughter "th'Opsalette" is in Middle School. I actually got a paper asking if it was okay if she learned sex education in Health class. I appreciated their asking, and said Heck Yes. (She has all ready had a few discussions about it with me, but without visual aids.) They didn't say what kind of sex ed it was, though. I suppose if they taught her that babies come from storks or kissing, then I might raise an objection, but in the end it's up to me to communicate with her about what she's learning and let her know my opinion if I think it's an important alternative to know. She is a shrewd person and has a beautifully functional BS sensor.

Parents will always have a right to object to what's taught. What a waste of time!

[stellinacadente]

I would opt for the option of not paying school taxes to the State (or get a tax refund) if your child is going to private school...

I find my daughter does much better in Montessori and I am paying a tuition that not cheap... why do I have to pay taxes to the State too???

[Aggie]

I don't have kids, and I am happy to have my taxes go to fund public education.  If they didn't, we might end up having to underpay teachers to the point that it's a shameful career choice, and end up with some gawdawful broken-down sham of a school system like.....



_{um, nevermind. pardon the untaddy outburst}

[Griffin NoName]

....the latter case it will not be the parents but the state lottery commission (and the local casino league) protesting the teaching of the theory of probability.

Apply probability to Jesus and one gets a distinct lack of probability.

[Scriblerus the Philosophe]

I would opt for the option of not paying school taxes to the State (or get a tax refund) if your child is going to private school...

I find my daughter does much better in Montessori and I am paying a tuition that not cheap... why do I have to pay taxes to the State too???

Because you still benefit from them. The kids your taxes are paying to educate will be your daughter's friends, neighbors, co-workers, and so on. They'll be the folk who pay for social security into your old age (assuming you can get SS? I have no idea what the situation is with you), they'll teach your grandkids, and so on.

Simply because you and your daughter does not directly benefit from your tax dollars does not mean you and your daughter do not benefit at all.


/super important issue to Scrib.

I don't have kids, and I am happy to have my taxes go to fund public education.  If they didn't, we might end up having to underpay teachers to the point that it's a shameful career choice, and end up with some gawdawful broken-down sham of a school system like.....



_{um, nevermind. pardon the untaddy outburst}

Also this.

[stellinacadente]

I don't have kids, and I am happy to have my taxes go to fund public education.  If they didn't, we might end up having to underpay teachers to the point that it's a shameful career choice, and end up with some gawdawful broken-down sham of a school system like.....



_{um, nevermind. pardon the untaddy outburst}

that's already here... where only kids that are having difficulties are given attention and the other need to fend for themselves (no child left behind passed under GW Bush)

where a public school allows the first amendment to be trashed and set on fire when they let bible trumpeters on the ground and have my daughter come home with a bracelet that says "Go to Church or go to Hell"...

sorry, we will have to agree o disagree on schools

[Scriblerus the Philosophe]

You're welcome to your opinion, of course, but that doesn't excuse the system break down (and imo, excuse your taxes). And again, you still benefit from it, if indirectly. Also, your choice to educate your daughter elsewhere is *your* choice, which imo does not mean you get to not pay taxes that fund local schools. Just because you choose to send your girl to a private school doesn't mean the kids in your neighborhood should suffer.

[stellinacadente]

You're welcome to your opinion, of course, but that doesn't excuse the system break down (and imo, excuse your taxes). And again, you still benefit from it, if indirectly. Also, your choice to educate your daughter elsewhere is *your* choice, which imo does not mean you get to not pay taxes that fund local schools. Just because you choose to send your girl to a private school doesn't mean the kids in your neighborhood should suffer.

Scribe,

people move in and out of neighborhoods, cities and states all the time...

I don't see schools closing down because of that...

Taxes are imposed for services to the public...
example: you do not have to pay for city sewer taxes if you have a property outside of city limits that is not hooked into the city systems.

you do not pay for services you do not use... this is the only case you do

[pieces o nine]

people move in and out of neighborhoods, cities and states all the time...

I don't see schools closing down because of that...

Taxes are imposed for services to the public...
example: you do not have to pay for city sewer taxes if you have a property outside of city limits that is not hooked into the city systems.

you do not pay for services you do not use... this is the only case you do

Well, actually, you do, because the US is not a 'pure' Capitalist or Xtreme!Libertarian system; there is lots of Socialism to keep the wheels turning (even if not always at the optimum speed or efficiency).

Three off-the-top-of-the-head examples:

1.  Some taxes maintain the city's street system -- not just the ones I choose to drive on. Even when I didn't drive, the public transport I took used streets throughout the whole city (and there were plenty of upper class people with at least one -- or sometimes several -- personal vehicles, complaining *bitterly* and perpetually in city council meetings against public transport, justifying their objections as "it's *only* for the poor, the elderly, the mentally unstable, the immigrants and the indigent, and why should we have to foot the bill because those people are too lazy to buy cars?").  Again, even when I didn't drive, the products I bought when I bicycled (or took the public transport! ) over to the local market were delivered on the national interstate system and then locally on our public streets. I was benefitting. Had I needed emergency services, they would have traveled public streets to get to me. City snowplows didn't skip my block because I didn't drive, and city sanitation (garbage pickup) traveled public streets and kept them looking nice, regardless of how little garbage I generated. I kinda liked that. Much later on, I sometimes opted to pay to drive the turnpikes in Denver; I didn't expect some sort of remuneration for not using the regular street system on those outings.

2.  Emergency services, themselves. I fervently hope to *never* need the police, the fire department, or an EMT. But I'm grateful that my community hasn't gone the way of others in the news: with subscription service for those services, and as for those who haven't kept up their personal payments, well, too bad for them...

3.  Public schools. My parents opted to put  three children into a parochial school -- and to pay tuition for the privilege -- for several years. They still paid the same taxes, some of which supported the public schools which we had attended prior to private school, and to which we returned after that experiment. Public school systems don't just poof into and out of existence based on an individual's attendance or interest in them. Those schools were educating the rest of the community, and my parents interacted with many public-school educated persons on a daily basis. They expected those people to have a basic level of education, even if their parents did not wish to (or were not able to) fork over extra money for private schooling. Before we were old enough to attend any school, public school educated people interacted with my public school educated parents; long after we graduated from college, public school educated people have continued to interact with my parents. If you look at it as only paying for what one personally benefits from, then my parents are continuing to pay for continuing to interact with educated people in their community. (Whether they are counting back change at the markets, or driving snowplows, or are police, firefighters, EMTs, pharmacists, business owners -- or public school teachers, themselves.)

Sadly, many school systems are suffering from budget cutbacks (we never seem to lack for moneys to prosecute wars forever, but I digress...) due to economic woes in those communities; should all children whose parents cannot pay for private school be left uneducated in strained economic times? How can an economy improve if its citizens turn out generation after generation of children whose education is systematically curtailed in the interest of economic comfort and convenience for those better off?

Sadly, many school systems are also suffering from deliberate --- and at this stage -- *open* sabotage from the very wealthy and powerful, who claim to want to hire the best educated workers that [the least] money can buy, but damned if they are willing to contribute to the educational system which they intend to exploit to maximum -- personal -- profit...



Civilization is all about living with other people, and generally for mutual benefit. An inescapable element of mutual benefit is not always coming out as the clear 'winner' in every interaction. Sometimes you give (whether obviously or not so obviously) and sometimes you get (whether obviously or not so obviously).  But those who are always on the take (<--- and that one is *not* directed at you, dear stelli!) are predators, not fellow citizens.

[Griffin NoName]

Pensioners* pay tax and some of that tax goes to schools, even though pensioners never have children. State schools could not exist if only funded by people with children currently in state education. State education is a service just like health services (here we all fund the  NHS). It's no different. There's lots of services we pay for in our taxes, but inidividually choose to purchase "privately" and none of them that fall into that category can we opt out of being taxed on the public variety.

The only way education could ever be left out of taxes would be a government which did not believe education matters. Regress to the 1700's? or early 1800's ? Seems unlikely.

* _{in fact pensioners taxes pay for loads of stuff they cannot make any use of........}

[Opsa]

I heartily agree with Scrib, Stelli and Griffin on the subject of tax-funded public education. It is a necessity. Without it you get a bunch of uneducated people who may or may not be willing to be worker bees. It's the ones that are not willing that are dangerous. An intelligent person who is not educated is the kind of person who may choose to go into professional crime. To support public education is to support a civilized community.

An education that includes the arts teaches empathy, communication, and cooperation. Surely these are qualities we want to see refined in all people, regardless of whether or not they can afford a private education.

[Scriblerus the Philosophe]

I've paid a bit into social security. It's not actually being put away for me as it is paying for current users, and it's not going to be there when I'm old/disabled enough to collect. Yet I don't mind paying, because I know people who need it benefit. IMO, it's the same thing with school taxes. You aren't using it, sure, but you're helping the neighbor kids (people you actually see and interact with; I have no idea who my money went to support).

You're welcome to your opinion, of course, but that doesn't excuse the system break down (and imo, excuse your taxes). And again, you still benefit from it, if indirectly. Also, your choice to educate your daughter elsewhere is *your* choice, which imo does not mean you get to not pay taxes that fund local schools. Just because you choose to send your girl to a private school doesn't mean the kids in your neighborhood should suffer.

Scribe,

people move in and out of neighborhoods, cities and states all the time...

I don't see schools closing down because of that...

Taxes are imposed for services to the public...
example: you do not have to pay for city sewer taxes if you have a property outside of city limits that is not hooked into the city systems.

you do not pay for services you do not use... this is the only case you do

You're comparing tomatoes and rocks, so to speak. Both are round, neither are sentient, but that's where the similarities stop. Moving is much different than totally removing yourself from the system because you aren't (currently) using it, because moving generally implies that someone is going to take the original resident's place and therefore pay the property taxes that fund the school. Removing yourself from the system means you're still there, but aren't putting in (and therefore depriving schools of much-needed money).



You said you put mini!Stelli into private school because she's doing better there, yes? Is it because the class sizes are small enough that teachers can pay more attention to her? Is the quality of instruction all-around better than in the public system? Better, more up-to-date books?
Did you ever wonder why the public school couldn't offer her that?

[Aggie]

* _{in fact pensioners taxes pay for loads of stuff they cannot make any use of........}

Pensioners tend to have used most of it at some point in their lives....!

[stellinacadente]

You said you put mini!Stelli into private school because she's doing better there, yes? Is it because the class sizes are small enough that teachers can pay more attention to her? Is the quality of instruction all-around better than in the public system? Better, more up-to-date books?
Did you ever wonder why the public school couldn't offer her that?

No. I put mini-Stelli in private school to avoid the Bible harassment.
Because I want her to be a free thinker and because the Montessori method is something I believe in.

one year in public school and she could hardly read
6 months at Montessori and she reads chapter books

more money to schools? not sure about it because of the use they make of it it's not necessarily productive for the children and the money just never seems enough...
on top of the taxes there is the almost weekly charity case for t he school...

I wonder what would happen if we half the Military budget and give the other half to education...

[Opsa]

...or better yet, let's halve the salaries of the Senators and Congresspeople. That way we'd get the greedy people out of there and get some people who might help govern for better reasons, like helping the country.

I understand about not wanting the Xtian rhetoric, and wanting the Montessori method. I'd send my kid to a better school if I could afford it, but I can't, so I appreciate your tax dollars spent on eduction, for what it's worth.

[Sibling Zono (anon1mat0)]

My son has benefited greatly from public schools; now, I live in an upper middle class part of town, but then again when I bought and moved here I did so because I researched school scores and this was a place with good public schools that I could afford. That being said, teachers have been laid off, many are fired at the end of the school year and re-hired at the beginning  (low budgets but small classrooms mandate, still the number is rising again) and I have to pay about ~$400 a year to support the music program (which I do happily). On the same token, taxes on my property went down for about $300 a year and at the same time the schools struggle to keep their quality with shrinking budgets.
---
Education is a complicated subject, and not only on the should I pay public if my son goes to private, or charter school model taking the money out of the system to fund private for profit schools. The quality and pensum are directly linked to the population they serve, if that population is on the low end of the scale, you can predict that the achievement level will be lower even with a decent budget, fundamentally because poorly educated parents don't value education as much nor provide stable environments for children to learn and achieve, but more importantly, because the critical forecasters of academic achievement are missing during the first 2-4 years of life, way before any kid places a foot in a school, those are self control and high vocabulary count. Add to that the bias of red state bible thumpers and that will have an impact, however not as large as you would imagine. There are still plenty of reasonable teachers doing their work all over the country.
---
I do understand the worry and anger about paying into something that apparently doesn't benefit me directly, more if you have to dig into your pocket for the same service, yet we all pay into this state pot that spends money that doesn't benefit us directly, and that doesn't mean that those expenses are unimportant. Take the park services, I don't benefit directly from maintaining Sequoia National Park, or Yellowstone, but I do benefit from the keeping of Everglades National Park, and even if I lived to far away from any national park I am benefiting from it just in carbon sequestration. Do you think that poor people that can't afford private schools now will be able to do so if there were no public schools? How would things be better for everyone if 15% of the population (and growing) can't read, write or do basic math?

There are things that I consider wasteful, at least half military spending if not more, subsidies to many private companies that don't really help anyone other than the owners of those companies, the shady business of the federal reserve that prints and lends money to the banks at 0% to then borrow from the same banks at 5-10% interest rate, and many others, but education is the one thing that should have more money, specially preschool, daycare, and afterschool programs, because the earlier the kids attend to structured plans the higher the achievement will be and that can only benefit everyone.

[Swatopluk]

Slightly off-topic but limiting the salaries of public officials (to less than subsistence level) has primarily two effects:
1) rampant corruption because those officials (unless they fall into category 2) have to rely on bribes to survive
2) only people rich enough to live without a salary can be public officials (or they have to be in category1)

Prime example: Rome in republican times. No public position carried a salary but on the contrary carried lots of expenditures candidates* had to pay from their own pockets => sole rule of the rich and corrupt. After the single year in office (of praetor and consul) they got a province to run as propraetor or proconsul. => ruthless exploitation and sucking-dry of those provinces in order to get rid of the debts incurred during time in office and to get enough riches for comfortable retirement. Rome's rule was anything but benevolent.

*candidatus = person wearing a toga candida (snow-white toga). This signified that the person was running for office and symbolized that he had a 'clean vest' (white= colour of innocence)

[Scriblerus the Philosophe]

Pretty much everything Zono said.

Slightly off-topic but limiting the salaries of public officials (to less than subsistence level) has primarily two effects:
1) rampant corruption because those officials (unless they fall into category 2) have to rely on bribes to survive
2) only people rich enough to live without a salary can be public officials (or they have to be in category1)

Prime example: Rome in republican times. No public position carried a salary but on the contrary carried lots of expenditures candidates* had to pay from their own pockets => sole rule of the rich and corrupt. After the single year in office (of praetor and consul) they got a province to run as propraetor or proconsul. => ruthless exploitation and sucking-dry of those provinces in order to get rid of the debts incurred during time in office and to get enough riches for comfortable retirement. Rome's rule was anything but benevolent.

*candidatus = person wearing a toga candida (snow-white toga). This signified that the person was running for office and symbolized that he had a 'clean vest' (white= colour of innocence)

I can't remember which country it is, but one of those little Asian Tiger island nations (Taiwan, I want to say?) pays their officials an absurd amount - the highest in the world, iirc - and that, combined with the incredibly stiff penalties for corruption means they have the least corrupt government on the planet.

You said you put mini!Stelli into private school because she's doing better there, yes? Is it because the class sizes are small enough that teachers can pay more attention to her? Is the quality of instruction all-around better than in the public system? Better, more up-to-date books?
Did you ever wonder why the public school couldn't offer her that?

No. I put mini-Stelli in private school to avoid the Bible harassment.
Because I want her to be a free thinker and because the Montessori method is something I believe in.

OIC. General, not-specifically-related-to-the-topic, was it teachers or the kids who were harassing? Kids, you can't do much about, but teachers you can take to the principal/district with threats of litigation/publicizing their misdeeds (the ALCU takes cases like this all the time and there are pro bono lawyers doing this if you know where to look/a HELL of a lot rides on a district's reputation).

Scrib,
--ruthless and perfectly willing to be nasty as necessary

one year in public school and she could hardly read
6 months at Montessori and she reads chapter books

I promise you at least part of this is money issues. How many kids were in her class? Especially when dealing with the lower grades, the time a teacher has to devote to each student has a massive impact on their learning. Quality teachers are (often) attracted to schools that can pay them better, too, and teacher quality is the other part of the equation.

more money to schools? not sure about it because of the use they make of it it's not necessarily productive for the children and the money just never seems enough...
on top of the taxes there is the almost weekly charity case for t he school...[/b]

Administration is not afraid of raising their salaries in the face of budget shortfalls (I'm lookin' at you, board of CSU governors), but generally speaking I disagree. And what do you mean "it's not necessarily productive for the children"? Charity case? Do you mean fundraisers the kids do like selling candy and such? You realize that there are activities, which are valid and valuable, that don't get much funding, don't you? EG, I spent years trying to raise money for my high school speech and debate team because we got practically no money from the school even though we consistently were among the best in the state (because, well, football is more visible/exciting/accessible than a bunch of teenagers arguing about foreign policy and morality and acting).
The money is never enough? Well kinda, yeah. New books and good teachers ain't cheap, and neither are quality facilities or awesome educational opportunities.

I wonder what would happen if we half the Military budget and give the other half to education...

A lot of good.

[Swatopluk]

I wonder what would happen if we half the Military budget and give the other half to education...

A lot of good.

Provided it does not all go to Oral Roberts, Falwell's Liberty and similar entities  

[stellinacadente]

How about a system with no public schools where the tuition of children that would normally opt for public schools would be covered by the school community?

If I really think about it, what really bugs me is not that I have to sped double for my daughter's education, but the fact that not all the schools are the same.

They have you trapped in this rat race for the house in the upper class neighborhood just to give your child a shot at decent education...

and that is the main reason why I went for private: I cannot afford to live in a mansion on the hills... so I opt for an apartment in a decent place and pay what I would pay extra to landlord into my daughter's tuition instead.

[Scriblerus the Philosophe]

How about a system with no public schools where the tuition of children that would normally opt for public schools would be covered by the school community?

That's still a public school, unless I'm misunderstanding you.

If I really think about it, what really bugs me is not that I have to sped double for my daughter's education, but the fact that not all the schools are the same.

They have you trapped in this rat race for the house in the upper class neighborhood just to give your child a shot at decent education...

and that is the main reason why I went for private: I cannot afford to live in a mansion on the hills... so I opt for an apartment in a decent place and pay what I would pay extra to landlord into my daughter's tuition instead.

For all schools to be the same, they would all need ample funding. Where would that money come from?

[Swatopluk]

Just for comparision. Over here public schools are financed from the general tax revenue not from specific property taxes from the specific community where the school is located. That eliminates at least the problem of rich schools for rich kids and poor ones for poor. Of course there are still good and bad schools but that at least does not originate from socially lopsided finances.

[Aggie]

I believe that schools here are provincially funded, IIRC. There is the potential for differences between provinces, but little difference between school districts within a province.  Teachers are also union employees and nearly impossible to fire without proof of gross misconduct. It's a respected position that comes with a fair (above-average, especially for teachers with seniority) salary.

On-reserve aboriginal schools fall outside of the provincial system and are generally underfunded and inadequate by comparison. 

[Scriblerus the Philosophe]

Having seen what a non-unionized school district can do to its employees, I would never, ever, EVER work in a district without a union, no matter what.

Just for comparision. Over here public schools are financed from the general tax revenue not from specific property taxes from the specific community where the school is located. That eliminates at least the problem of rich schools for rich kids and poor ones for poor. Of course there are still good and bad schools but that at least does not originate from socially lopsided finances.

Hmm, I don't know that I would necessarily support that here (this may be my privilege speaking here, since I went to a decent school district in a wealthier area*). While there are some stunningly wealthy areas, most of California, for example, is pretty poor, and in those areas a lot of their budget comes from federal and state money (because there is a portion set aside for that). Those districts spend a lot of time floundering (part of this is actually due to the incredibly ass-backwards nature of NCLB, which punishes underperforming schools by taking away funding when the reason they're struggling is heavily, heavily related to a lack of money already) and California's education system already sucks - I think we're in the bottom five in the nation. I would rather have *some* good districts than have all of them suck.


*Quite a bit of that district's budget, actually, comes from community bonds, which are voted on by the city it's based in, although there's some unfairness there since the wealthiest part of the district is actually in Fresno rather than in my city so they get our money without paying any in or voting on the bonds.

[Swatopluk]

Just to clarify, school funding over here is a responsibility of the Länder (=states), so there is a difference between e.g. Bavaria and Mecklenburg-Vorpommern. Federal action on the topic of schools is an area where Länder and Bund (federal government) clash regularly. The Länder (try to) cooperate on common standards through The Bildungs/Kultusministerkonferenz, i.e. regular talks between the education/culture departments of the different Länder.
Some Länder get accused of luring away good teachers from other less fortunate ones, so it's not all happiness and sauerkraut.

[pieces o nine]

... so it's not all happiness and sauerkraut.

Now  *there's*  a quote we can all get behind!   

[Roland Deschain]

For clarification, what you call public schools in the US, we call state schools in the UK. What you call private schools in the US, we call public schools in the UK. For the purposes of clarity, i'll use the UK versions (sorry to my US sistern and brethren).

I'm all for decent funding of state schools. I was educated in one, albeit a good one, but I was also motivated to a degree with a willingness to learn, which was partly due to my nature, partly due to my parents. State schools are there to ensure a certain educational level within the general population, and we are all obligated to contribute to this, as we all rely on those educated there. As has been said, if I have to interact with someone in my life, it's bad enough that I have to deal with the large number of seemingly ignorant and uneducated there are now, without removing yet more funding from the schools who give them what they (laughably) have already.

Education is for education's sake, and the more of it there is, the better our society's potential. We need to instil a love of learning into our youth, as they are the future. To avoid a future with most people being woefully uneducated (not that it doesn't seem as such right now) is scary to the point of making me feel ill, and I am more than willing to devote a percentage of that money to prop up the state school system in my country. It may not be perfect, not by a long shot, and the solution to the current attitudes to education in many is another issue altogether, but it is the best we currently have.

Sure, you can advocate reducing the military budget by half, but do you seriously expect that to happen under the current system, where most major politicians who decide these things are beholden to either the military-industrial complex, big business, or both? Without a major social revolution, that just ain't gonna happen.

[Aggie]

Education is for education's sake, and the more of it there is, the better our society's potential. We need to instil a love of learning into our youth, as they are the future. To avoid a future with most people being woefully uneducated (not that it doesn't seem as such right now) is scary to the point of making me feel ill, and I am more than willing to devote a percentage of that money to prop up the state school system in my country. It may not be perfect, not by a long shot, and the solution to the current attitudes to education in many is another issue altogether, but it is the best we currently have.

Sure, you can advocate reducing the military budget by half, but do you seriously expect that to happen under the current system, where most major politicians who decide these things are beholden to either the military-industrial complex, big business, or both? Without a major social revolution, that just ain't gonna happen.

Regarding your last point, how many top-level politicians' children do you think attend state/public rather than public/private school?  Similar to the provision of public healthcare, the decision-makers are ones with very little personal interest in the public system and lucrative connections to alternative service providers. The poorer that the publicly-funded schools are (in terms of performance), the more profitable commercial education providers will be.

[Roland Deschain]

Regarding your last point, how many top-level politicians' children do you think attend state/public rather than public/private school?  Similar to the provision of public healthcare, the decision-makers are ones with very little personal interest in the public system and lucrative connections to alternative service providers. The poorer that the publicly-funded schools are (in terms of performance), the more profitable commercial education providers will be.

This is so very true, but has this not almost always been the case? In the UK, there were almost scandals over top MPs and PMs sending their children to public schools instead of the state-funded ones, when they were saying that there was nothing wrong with state schools. If you can afford it, you have the right to do so, but if the state schools are so good, why not save the money and send them to one?