I apologize for my lack of posts, I have been insanely busy with life, I know - I'll try not to let it get in the way...
I wanted to respond to a few things said here especially by ND in my Public Education posts
ND wrote:
I am confused by your logic that you seem to believe to have put forward so clearly. Are we to believe that we should be refunded from the government for every service that we do not use that taxes go toward? For example, I do not eat beans. Then I believe that all government tax revenue allocated to farmers to subsidize their crops should be refunded to me. I don't use the Anoka County parks, so then I"m to believe that my tax dollars paying for that or for the 35W bridge reconstruction should be refunded to me if I choose to not use those services?
These analogies do not hold. Here is why:
Take you bean farmer analogy, (I'll put the whole argument against farm subsidies aside for the moment) Let me improve on it so it does fit the situation. For Example; If the Government in their wisdom decided to give 100% subsidy to bean farmers, one would presume that they must be doing so because they believe that it is to the benefit of everyone to have beans (at least that is the only real rational for a government to spend money). Therefore you could walk down to your local grocery store and pick up a pound of beans a week for free! 'Great', you say 'Beans benefits everyone.' However in Joe's case (whoever Joe may be), he need beans just as much as anyone else, but Joe can not get to the store or maybe he cannot use the free beans because of personal reasons (allergic reaction to the mass produced beans, religious objection to the cow manure that is being used for fertilizer --maybe Joe is Hindu!-- take your pick). So Joe, despite the fact that Joe is paying for the beans through his taxes, needs to go to an outside farmer who is not being subsidized and pay for the beans that he can eat. Joe is saving the government money by not eating the subsidized beans and he is paying for beans that he can eat. Joe is paying twice. If that was the case then 'Yes' Joe should get a voucher for the beans that he is not using in order to pay for the beans that he IS using. Beans are still a good thing and Joe is not asking for anything more than the money that the Government already declared that people Should have for beans. Now ND doesn't eat beans at all, He doesn't even like them despite the fact that the government thinks beans are such a great thing. Even though beans are such a great thing, we probably don't want to shove the beans down his throat (all though our public education comes dangerously close to this in some areas) In this case ND is paying once and not taking advantage of the beans he bought, but he is not paying twice.
Private schools are a great option for those that can afford them, but what about the family that can't? Are they just on their own? Because you choose to home-school your children does not mean that you get your tax dollars back.That is why I advocated vouchers or tax credits! I did not say that they were on there own. Why shouldn't I get my tax dollars back, at least the portion I would be using if my children were in the school system! This is the money the school district is saving because my children are not in their school. Isn't that worth something at all?
Don't you realize that would increase the taxes even more on those who can't afford to send their children to private school or teach their kids at home? You are making a conscious choice to not use public educationActually the exact opposite would happen as I tried to point out in More on Public School Funding. Because the most expensive education is the public schools giving vouchers to people on order to by a better quality education with less tax dollars would benefit everyone.
I'm also disappointed to see that you are a Christian. What does Jesus say about feeding the hungry, helping the weak and giving clothes to the poor? Or being "in the world" not "of it"? Why would you choose to remove funds from the teachers that are doing a good job, and more importantly with a greater purpose of bringing life to the poor, hungry and weak students? I believe that I am called to be a teacher to the "least of these" and you just want your money back. It seems your ranting is based more on selfish ambition than concern for othersI believe Jesus said, "Give to Cesar what is Caesar's". I believe that the the State should help with education, but for the most part it is us Christians who should be feeding the hungry, not the government. But that deserves another post entirely, as the idea that the State should usurp those mandates from Christ is one that needs to be purged from Christian thought.
I'm sorry you have it out for public education. Obviously you've had some bad experiences and believe that all educators and school systems are evilas I said in a recent post on More on Public School Funding "My mother, sister, mother-in-law, brother-in-law and two sister-in-laws are all in education. Four of those actually work for the Anoka-Hennepin School District". And I personally went to school in Anoka-Hennepin for all K-12. I know of where I speak and I know that the vast majority of teachers are doing a good job, I never implied otherwise. (or my mother-in-law would not watch my kids any more I am sure!)
...Maybe all of the Anoka-Hennepin voters can also come to your workplace and vote on how well you're doing your job? Even though they may have no idea what you do or how well you may do it, let's just come and stereotype what we think you do and how poorly you do it based on some experiences we've had 50 years ago. Yes, there may be bad teachers, but there are also bad video rental guys, check out clerks, and accountants. That doesn't mean that boycotting Blockbuster, Cub and taxes will solve the problem. If you want to help change the educational system run for school board or join a committee--don't vote to take away the money that is needed to survive!I would venture to say that most private jobs are quite closely scrutinized, at least that has been my experience. It is much easier to remove a bad employee from a company than it is to remove a bad teacher from the Public Education system. There is no such thing a tenure in the private sector.
However, having said that, I must point out that the vote next week is NOT about how well the teachers are doing their jobs and I NEVER said or implied it. It is about the waste in the public school system. It is about the insatiable need for ever increasing amounts of money for an increasingly decadent education. It is about starving the beast and attempting to return some semblance of fairness to those of us who have removed ourselves at a great personal cost from the Public School System.
No comments:
Post a Comment