Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!caip!think!mit-eddie!cybvax0!frog!necntc!gkb From: gkb@necntc.UUCP (Greg Busby) Newsgroups: net.sci,net.politics Subject: Re: privatization of education Message-ID: <288@necntc.UUCP> Date: Thu, 24-Jul-86 13:50:00 EDT Article-I.D.: necntc.288 Posted: Thu Jul 24 13:50:00 1986 Date-Received: Sat, 26-Jul-86 07:22:03 EDT References: <3719@decwrl.DEC.COM> <136@cci632.UUCP> Lines: 90 reg Busby) Organization: NEC Electronics Inc. Natick, MA 01760 Lines: 84 Xref: clyde net.sci:1420 net.politics:18055 In article <2413@brl-smoke.ARPA> gwyn@brl.arpa (Doug Gwyn (VLD/VMB) ) writes: >In article <491@bnrmtv.UUCP> timlee@bnrmtv.UUCP (Timothy Lee) writes: >>A student attending public school has his education paid for by his family's >>taxes. One who attends private school pays tuition IN ADDITION to taxes ... > >One thing I forgot to mention in my original response to Tedrick's >request for my opinion: I consider tax credits or vouchers for >education as merely an interim measure to be followed by complete >removal of the tax burden for education. It is unfair for a person >to be forced to pay for somebody else's child's education; the idea >that someone's hard work is going to pay for what are properly others' >responsibilities can hardly be considered just, unless one adopts >socialist notions or a spurious appeal to pragmatism. Before I launch into my response, I would like to say that IN PRINCIPLE I am not opposed to many of the things that Objectivists, Libertarians, et al. believe in, such as those who work harder deserve to do better than those that don't, and that paople should be free to choose (and live with the results of) their own actions. I am, however, opposed to the apparently calluos disregard that many of them show for those who have not been given the opportunity to acquire a status in life that allows them to see the fruits of their own labors and the results of their own actions. I also think that they assume most of America is middle-class and educated, and that they are therefore prepared to make and accept the consequences of informed, reasoned decisions. Unfortunately, this is not the case, and thosewho aren't as far along the in their [social, psychological, economic, etc.] development should be helped along a little by those who are. Anyway, on to my response... Although it is true that the education of children is primarily the responsibility of the parents, and that good parents will take on this responsibility willingly and (hopefully) well, it should be remembered that there are many parents who are unwilling (or unable) to spend a lot of time (or MONEY) on their children's education. BUT, this does not really hurt the parents, who are (usually) adults and should be able to live their own lives, but rather hurts the children by denying them the oportunity and training to better themselves and build the kind of life that they may want to lead. Since it is so important to have a good education in this country in order to get a good job in order to get a good salary in order to make a good life, etc., ALL children should be given the opportunity, as I said. Now, if you say that there should be no publice education, and that all education should be paid for by the parents, you either beleive that A) all parents are financially responsible enough that they can sed their children to a private institution (a notion which, by the way, I am sure very few people are naive enough to believe) or B) that children whose parents are not financially able to sen them to a private school should not be given the same advantages as those who were lucky enough to be born to more affluent parents. This seems, at least to me, to be a case of 'them that has, gets, and them that hasn't, gets screwed'. Revolutions have been fought over less. >(At least, >I've never heard any other justifications for this. It's similar >to the complaint one often hears about being forced to support the >children of a welfare family, while the parents irresponsibly >continue to produce more children for others to support.) This last statement is more of the same -- it is penalizing children for the transgressions of their parents. This has been part of the Judeo-Christian teachings for some time, but I can't honestly believe that anyone who romotes Rational solutions to problems can feel that the children, who had no voice in choosing their parents, should be made to pay for thier parents' mistakes. The alternative, forced sterilization, is repugnant. >In summary, fully privatized education would not require that the >government handle educational funding at all, although since it >does at present it would have to be involved in the conversion to >completely private education. In order to pay for the education of children with poor parents, the government will have to be involved, either through a "school stamps" program or through direct establishment and control of educational facilities. In either case, the only way to pay for this is through taxes, whether they be on the amount of income you earn or on the amount of property you own or on the amount you pay in tuition for your children to attend a private institution. In any case, you are probably no better off than you are now, a lot of extra red tape and hassle has been created for everyone, and very little, if anything, has been done about the vicious cycle of the more affluent person (ie the one who needs it least) getting the larger sare of the pie.