Charge parents tuition for public schools
A few weeks ago, I posted some ideas from Brian Crosby’s latest book: “Smart Kids, Bad Schools: 38 Ways to Save America’s Future.” Brian sent me an op-ed piece fleshing out one of his most controversial recommendations: Charge tuition for public school.
Here is what he wrote:
If parents of the 47 million students in the United States who attend kindergarten through 12th grade were billed $360 per child per year — that’s $2 a day for each of the 180 days of instruction — nearly $17 billion would be generated.
Can half of America’s parents afford $360 per year for each of their children?
For the price of a cup of coffee, a child can get educated for a day. For the price of a movie ticket, a child can get educated for a week.
For the price of a cellular phone bill, a child can get educated for a month. For the price of a video game console, a child can get educated for an entire year.
Parents spend hundreds of dollars on iPods and cellphones for their children. Is $360 going to break their backs?
However, let’s say only half of the parents can foot the bill. That still leaves $8.5 billion going to public schools.
Cutting a week out of the skimpy school calendar as some have proposed as a way to save money is not the solution to a fiscal crisis, though if the week cut out was the one for state testing, many teachers and students wouldn’t mind.
Already American children attend school fewer days than most other industrialized nations. While a free education for all is a wonderful gift, it’s simply not possible anymore.
There should be no sticker shock about this. Parents today pay for athletic uniforms, musical instruments, lab fees, school-embossed clothing, and field trips
Plus, they get nickeled and dimed to death from schools throughout the year to donate money for art and music programs, to get their cars washed for athletic programs, to consume cardboard pizza so that a few dollars will go to the schools. Children would no longer have to go begging relatives and neighbors to buy coupon books.
For years community colleges charged no tuition. Then, during a financial crisis, they started implementing nominal fees such as $50 per semester. “How dare they” demonstrations broke out proclaiming the beginning of the end of community colleges.
Well, today the colleges have more students than ever before, despite charging $15, $20 or $25 per unit. For an average class load of 15 units, the cost of one semester of community college is a few hundred dollars — not a bad deal. Nearly half of community college students get their tuition waived anyway because of their low-income status.
Attaching a price to “free” services will help students and parents understand the value of education. Psychologically it’s interesting how people view something that is free: They tend to place less value on it than if they have to pay for it.
Walk onto campuses right after lunch, especially at high schools, and notice the garbage strewn around. Students would less likely trash their schools knowing their parents had a vested interest in the property.
Look, nobody enjoys paying for services that used to be free. However, a generation of people has grown up with cable television and doesn’t even remember that TV used to cost nothing. Paying $360 a year for a child’s education is half of what the average person spends on watching television.
Which is more important?
This is Maureen again — Many people would argue that parents are already paying tuition through taxes, but I have to agree that people seem to take things more seriously when they pay directly for them.
What do you think?
Tell us what you think about the site
Customer Care »
Vacation stops, manage subscriptions and more
AJC Services
Sections
Other Editions
Guides
Visitor Agreement | Privacy Statement
© 2011 The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
72 comments Add your comment
Ernest
September 9th, 2009
11:17 am
Even when people pay a nominal amount for a service, they seem to take greater ownership in ensuring they get value in return for the investment. I mentioned in an earlier blog of a principal of an evening adult school that proposed charging a small fee just to ensure students would show up to class. Yes, these services are supported mostly by our property taxes but what if some of these services were taken away under the guise of ‘cost savings’?
jim d
September 9th, 2009
11:49 am
Here’s a better idea.
http://www.fff.org/freedom/fd0601aa.asp
Cere
September 9th, 2009
12:44 pm
Never, ever will this happen. I am appalled at the number of parents who refuse to pay the $5 for their child’s required high school agenda book, $2 for a bus fee for a field trip, or $5 to join the PTA. I’ve seen both of those hundreds of times over the years. The sense of entitlement and demands on the system has increased, and the appreciation for teachers and parents volunteers has decreased.
Personally, I think we are heading for the day when public schools (at least in large systems in the cities) will exist to serve the poor and anyone who can possibly afford to will turn to private schools. It won’t be all that different from private clubs vs public pools. We have reached our level of critical mass in the public schools and the number of families who contribute and volunteer to the community schools are by far out-numbered, under-appreciated and continually marginalized by the administration. They will (and are now) be leaving in droves.
Elroy Cohen
September 9th, 2009
1:00 pm
I’m already paying tuition. It’s called property tax. So, I am definitely not in favor of paying an additional fee on top of that. If the portion of my property tax that goes to the School Board is eliminated, then tuition is fine and probably better than the property tax because alot of folks have kids in school but don’t own any real property.
Cere
September 9th, 2009
1:19 pm
Your property taxes do not cover all of the costs of public schools. Really, probably 2/3 of the cost is paid by the state and federal governments. (Somewhere around $5-6k per student.) Not to mention the federal government’s base share (which many wonder if their contribution even serves to cover their NCLB mandates) and Title 1 expenditures. Public schools are funded by an abundance of taxes that reach far beyond your local property taxes.
mift
September 9th, 2009
1:29 pm
All good conjecture but never going to happen. The state constitution says that the state of Georgia has the obligation to supply a free and “adequate” education. Shoot- parent yell when you ask them to supply tissues and pencils.
Lewis
September 9th, 2009
1:30 pm
The tution of $360 per child is not realistic.You’re not considering families with three or four children in school at the same time. Their bill for tuition would range in the thousands. Not everyone with children have jobs. There are many families with only one income or are on unemployment. Not because they don’t want to work, but there are alot of layoffs. This issue should be reconsidered.
JMH
September 9th, 2009
1:31 pm
I pay property taxes and that should be enough. The problem is that there are too many administrative costs that goes into running schools, make cuts at the district level. There is no need for your average elementary school to have a principal and 3 assistant principals.
The point is that I already pay enough through property taxes. Then you want PTA dues membership dues, demand participation in fundraisers, and pety fees. I have no problem paying for field trips but $5 for an agenda book and a $3 clinic fee are ridiculous (my kids are rarely sick!)
Even parents with significant financial income don’t like to be nickel and dimed to death, those are the ones that alwyas go above and beyond to begin with. I bought a home in a nice school district and pay well above my fair share in property taxes. Don’t ask me for any more money than I have already given you. The school district is not spending their money wisely and that is not my fault or should my child be penalized for that.
what's right for kids?
September 9th, 2009
1:32 pm
If charging a fee will introduce new respect for education from parents (it’s not the kids, folks), then I say I am all for it. Considering the amount of money spent on fundraisers and other things, it would probably be a money saver for families.
Just so long as there aren’t any “new” administrative jobs being created to figure out how to spend the money. Spend it on teachers and the students.
I would love to have a set of books that I could lend out to students to take home and read. Unfortunately, the money for those books is being spent on a curriculum expert who spends most of his/her day on facebook.
Elroy Cohen
September 9th, 2009
1:32 pm
But taxes nevertheless. Therefore, why should we be asked to pay tuition when we are already paying taxes, be they property, state or federal income taxes? I pay property tax, state income tax and federal income tax. Some people just pay income taxes and some folks don’t pay any property or income tax at all. I’m already doing my fair share through my tax dollars, so I don’t need to get stuck with tuition when some people are getting over.
Call it like it is.
September 9th, 2009
1:48 pm
Okay, pretty much this whole article is lame. First of all we already all pay for the schools with our taxes. If you want to help your schools it needs to be treated more like a real business. First, Get rid of the teachers unions! Their jobs should no more be protected then mine. If my employess don’t perform I get canned. And no I don’t get to use the excuse, “Well the parents should help out too.” Its your job do it!
2nd. Quit forcing teachers to buy from certain suppliers. This is American, let the low cost provider be their source for school supplies.
3rd. Pay for performance. If Georgia’s teachers can’t teach, get rid of them. Bring in people with real workforce experience to do the job. If we didnt have to keep around so much dead wood, it would amaze you how much money we would have to spend. You got a lot of Americans that have retired, pull on their experience and put them to work. I rather have my child learn from somebody who has been there versus the 20 something who has never had a real job in their entire life.
Legend of Len Barker
September 9th, 2009
1:56 pm
Way down here in the sticks, some parents don’t pay for anything.
- Groceries and clothes? Provided by the local church-run charity.
- School lunch? Free if you qualify. Even if you didn’t fill out the paperwork, the school can’t refuse to not feed your kid something, even if it’s only a carton of milk and a peanut butter sandwich.
- Supplies? Neighborhood churches provide free supplies at the beginning of the year and the kids can usually borrow everything they need through the school year.
- Field trips? Almost always free. If not, a teacher inevitably feels sorry for the kids without the money to go.
This isn’t a new phenomenon, either. Public education was made free in Georgia in the 1870s. Textbooks were made free when E.D. Rivers was elected governor in 1937.
Given that we’ve provided so much free for so long, we can’t go back on it. Nor can we enforce mandatory education for kids 5-17 if at the same time we enforce mandatory tuition.
Even if we waive the tuition rate for low income families, we’re in the same boat as we’re in now, only that parents $2 rate per child; they’d be paying around $10 a day to cover the slack of others. If the government picked up the slack, it’d defeat the whole purpose.
Warrior and Mom
September 9th, 2009
2:07 pm
This sounds like a great idea. I would be willing to pay if I my kids could cross attendance zones to go the better schools. Anyway, what is up with kids having to pay to attend a pep rally? Are schools so strapped that kids have to pay to attend any function during the school day? What happens to the ones that don’t have the door money?
I gave up my cell phone a year ago, have regular TV and sold my PS2 earlier this year. I have cut back to the bone being on a fixed income. My kids don’t have ipods…but have what they need.
EducationCEO
September 9th, 2009
2:14 pm
Maureen you seem to give merit to this idea, yet you have been quick to say that charter schools are no better than traditional public schools. Like the other comments, I already pay property taxes (which have not been reduced according to the devaluation of my home) and my kids do not have school choice options, something more charter schools would provide. If I had the option to keep what I pay towards education, I would use that money towards private school tuition, at least for my oldest who was subjected to daily bullying at one of the local schools. If $2 per day could guarantee safety, arts education programs, and access to a challenging curriculum, instead of tracking based on zip code and socioeconomic status, I would seriously consider it.
Thank you.
Reality 2
September 9th, 2009
2:26 pm
I don’t think parents should be charged tuition for the compulsory education. However, charging parents $360/year or even more for HS is very much reasonable.
I also don’t think teachers’ union has anything to do with the quality of education. Yes, they are there to protect teachers’ jobs, but, in general, I think happy teachers who don’t have to worry about their work environments make better teachers. I just wish they were more knowledgeable and competent. But, I think we must realize we get what we pay for.
what's right for kids?
September 9th, 2009
2:32 pm
Once again, and this time, please pay attention…Georgia is a right to work state. There are no unions. I repeat: there are no teachers’ unions in Georgia. There are associations, which are worthless in helping teachers.
what's right for kids?
September 9th, 2009
2:38 pm
Call it like it is,
I invite you to come and teach in a school for a week…on your own…in any area that you wish to teach.
Looking for a better way
September 9th, 2009
2:43 pm
I went to a small city school that my parents paid tuition so I didn’t have to attend the county school. My mother worked for the school and we lived outside the city limits. These days there are waiting lists to get into this school. Tuition is fine if there is a choice in the school to be attended. Mandatory education and mandatory tuition without choice? No thanks. But what about transportation costs? What about charging to use the bus? How much money is being used to cover maintenance and fuel costs? What percentage of a system’s funds are used for transportation? Is transportation a right or a privilege? This charge would only be placed on those who take advantage of it. My school system didn’t have a bus when I went there 20 years ago and they still don’t today. My kids don’t ride the bus now because I take them to school.
As a parent and a former “educator” (I use that term because little of what I had to do was actually teach), I despise fundraisers, I despise being asked to provide for every child in the classroom, I never asked for classroom supplies to do MY job. I provide for myself and my family. I help out when and where I can to others but I can’t stand enforced charity. If I pay for something then I should have some sort of choice…be it teacher, school, etc. It’s a basic right of a consumer!
And one last thought, if taxes are paying education costs (or supposed too) then can I get a credit for the taxes I paid when I didn’t have children in school? My parents have paid county taxes for a school they never “used” and haven’t had a child at home for 15 years. So, I’d be all for a tuition charge for a school that I get “use” out of because my contribution would stop after my children leave the system.
JMH
September 9th, 2009
2:56 pm
Make parents pay for the extras like sports. If my child excelled in football I would not mind paying extra during the HS years to pay for that program.
what’s right for kids? is right in that GA does not have teacher unions like you are thinking of. They go hand in hand with the states that have labor unions. States like MI and OH have labor unions for the auto industry as well as teachers unions.
ACH
September 9th, 2009
3:08 pm
Tuition? Sure, provided I have a choice in schools. My parents paid tuition for my sister and I to attend the city school instead of the county school. The city school was within 5 miles of my home while the county school was 25 miles away. Also, my child attends an elementary school that is located in the opposite direction of where my wife and I work. The choice that tuition should offer would be a benefit as the school is on the way to work. But since taxes are supposed to pay for education, how about a credit for the years I paid taxes without a child in the school system? My parents have paid county taxes for almost 40 years without a child in the county system or a school age child for over 15 years. Since they chose for us to go to the city school, I’d be willing to accept that they “opted out” of the provided service but have had no need for any service for the last 15 years.
Transportation costs have always intrigued me. Are buses part of the guarantee to education? Are they a right or a privilege? What about those who use the service pay for the service? I’d be curious to know what percentage of education costs are tied up in transportation. The school system i grew up in did not provide transportation and I believe that had a positive effect on money being directed back into the school and not out of a tailpipe. The school I taught at in Gwinnett had almost 30 buses a day to take kids home. If you take 30 buses, multiply by 180 days, by 2.50 a gallon for fuel and figure 5 gallons a day then you would have $67,500 in savings. Wouldn’t that pay for two teachers? And these are just simple numbers to start with. How much money is spent on transportation that could be redirected?
Just a thought…
Maureen Downey
September 9th, 2009
3:09 pm
Education CEO:
What I have said on charter schools is that the Georgia Legislature — in focusing all of its energy on charter school legislation in the last two sessions — seems to believe that more charters will solve all of Georgia’s education woes. Beyond creating a more hospitable climate for charters, lawmakers did little else in education.
And I wrote:
“It’s not the name over the door that determines whether a school vibrates with excitement and engaged learning. It’s the quality and commitment of the staff, which is why the General Assembly ought to shift from debating how to structure schools to how to sustain great teachers and principals.
That’s still the piece missing from virtually all policy discussions.
“Certainly, there’s a place for more charter schools in Georgia, but charter schools will not be the salvation of public education. Charters give parents more options, which is to be applauded, but they don’t come with a money-back guarantee of academic achievement.”
DeKalb Conservative
September 9th, 2009
3:22 pm
Utopian idea, but I find it hard to believe if implemented schools would have found a way to spend an extra $3 / day for the $2 / day they were expecting to see.
The one aspect I this argument that I like and perhaps many others will agree with is to encourage each parent to “invest” $10 / week, ie $40 / month, ie $2 / day for a 180 day calendar, into their child’s education per each child (this means all those fertile mertile’s out there).
However you get to that figure is up to you. Want to buy a book, take a field trip on the weekend to the zoo, or to a museum, perfect. Don’t have the money to do this — that’s okay too. Spend the time working with your child. This might get to be difficult in more advanced education, but easily K-6 most parents could work with their children on help with spelling tests, or basic math, including flashcards.
My question is why does this money have to go to the school? Regardless of wealth, with the above, each parent could make a difference.
Call it like it is.
September 9th, 2009
3:25 pm
“Whats Right for Kid” Please take your own advice and YOU pay attention, who knows you might learn something. What do you think the GAE is?? It is a thinly veiled UNION. With 35,000 members that accept dues. Just try and fire a Georgia teacher and see how fast this non-union will be on you with all guns blazing. And dear heart in regards to me teaching, wouldnt be a problem. When I retire from my current job, would have no problem at all bringing my wisdom to our youth.
And since your thinking your making some kind of valid point. My mother was a teacher and my wife is a teacher. And either one of them would tell you the same. If you can’t do the job, you should be canned!
I never cared for Roy Barnes, but when he tried to break the back of the Georgia Association of Educators he met his Waterloo. Yeah but their not a union.
Do some homework if you plan on bringing something to the table.
Clueless
September 9th, 2009
3:38 pm
If they can’t or won’t pay for their children’s breakfasts and lunches, would they really pay tuition?
what's right for kids?
September 9th, 2009
3:43 pm
Call it like it is,
Is there collective bargaining? Does GAE have a say in what Sonny Perdue did with fulough days? No. Because Georgia is a right to work state. It is not a union state. Which is why GAE is called Georgia ASSOCIATION of teachers.
Unions are mandatory to join in union states. GAE, PAGE, etc. are associations that are not mandatory to join.
I agree with you that teachers should be relieved of their duties if they are not performing. I agree that there is expertise out there that is cannot be garnered from a young person strait out of college.
However, Georgia is not a union state. I’d like to move to one at some point, though, so that my pay will be higher.
DeKalb Conservative
September 9th, 2009
3:56 pm
GAE though it doesn’t have the word union in its name, but then again the NEA, National Education Association, aka the largest union in the country doesn’t have the word union in its name either.
Reality 2
September 9th, 2009
4:11 pm
ACH,
You do have a choice – you can send your child to a specific public school in your area or you don’t. If you want to send your child to the school, then you pay. If you chose not to, you don’t. It’s as simple as that.
Looking…
Yes, tax pays for schooling, and it is NOT tuition. If it were tuition, then only those parents who have kids in schools pay. Education of our youth is a societal concern and we as citizens have the duty to support such an endeavor.
JMH
September 9th, 2009
4:13 pm
Quite a few of you really have no idea what a real teacher’s “union” is. GAE and NEA are no different than your school’s PTA that you join and pay a small fee. Move to a state with real “unions” and you’ll see (pay for) the difference! Think UAW.
jim d
September 9th, 2009
4:19 pm
Ya know, for two hundred years people have claammered for MO MONEY for education–when they have gotten it, it has made no difference or improvement. Continuing to throw good money after bad has never nor will it ever improve the public education system.
The only thing that will ever work is when we gain the courage to disassemble the system and start over. Then and only then do we stand any chance of seeing an improvement.
jim d
September 9th, 2009
4:29 pm
Cere,
“probably 2/3 of the cost is paid by the state and federal governments.”
I hate to break this to you, but the government has no money of their own—-IT IS OURS!
Zachs Mom
September 9th, 2009
4:38 pm
If they didn’t ride the bus…how would they get to and from school? Would you make it so every one could be a SAHM? In order for me to take and pick up my child from the 9th grade, School would have to start at 4:30am and I couldn’t pick him up till afte 6:15 at night. Not every day either, just the ones that I have to work. We live to far for him to walk. That doesn’t fit in with everyone who wants shorter school days.
I would be more than happy to pay if it ment smaller class sizes.
DeKalb Conservative
September 9th, 2009
4:44 pm
@ jim d
“I hate to break this to you, but the government has no money of their own—-IT IS OURS!”
Thank you for writing this. I needed to hear that others still felt this way.
dgroy
September 9th, 2009
4:46 pm
Maureen, surely you’ve thought this out and this is just your way of getting comments. This is about the dumbest idea I’ve heard in awhile. Our school systems are already funded by taxpayers……and now you want us to pay more??? I want to see you a the front of the line.
Brian Crosby
September 9th, 2009
4:56 pm
What a spirited discussion has ensured over my suggestion of charging tuition for public schools. Please remember that this is but one of many ideas I discuss in my book. I make it clear that I don’t have all the answers. However, as I continue my 21st year in the classroom, it is clear that our country’s way of educating young people must change. Otherwise, America as a great economic superpower will continue to decline. I hope we all can continue this dialogue and make our voices heard to the people who are in charge of public schools, namely local, state and federal politicians.
ACH
September 9th, 2009
5:10 pm
Reality2: As far as being able to send my child to a specific school: If I were back home I would have the choice between the city school system and the county system. If I lived outside the city limits i could then pay tuition to send my kids to the city school. This would be an active choice. However, where I am currently located my child attends the school that the powers that be dictated. When we asked prior to my son starting school, we requested a change of schools for convenience sake. The request was denied due to school zoning. School zones can change and have. Had this been an issue of the county providing transportation, I could understand and accept that. Since I take my children to school, this was not the case. As these are the only schools available, excluding private or home school, there is NO choice available to me. So my point remains valid. Tuition would be acceptable IF there is choice.
As far as a societal concern, I have always had issues over the “duty” to support services that I am not using or in need of. Since my children are in school, I have no issues with paying my share of the “burden” on the system that I created. In fact I would truly prefer a system where I spend directly for those services I need or have use of. Fire and police are examples of services that, while I don’t use them daily, could be required at a moments notice. Education, however, is something I find to be different. Once my children are out of school, why should I be forced to pay for someone else? There is no way to “opt out” of a service that would be of no benefit to the one paying. If I chose to home school or pay for private school then I am still REQUIRED to pay for a service that I would not use. Ideally, if I am not a “burden” to the service then why should I have to pay to maintain it?
The overall question is does paying for something make it more meaningful? In my experience, Yes. My first attempt at college on full scholarship) was an abysmal failure because I did not take advantage of the opportunity and I flunked out. My second attempt (on my dime) was a polar opposite as I maintained a 3.7 gpa.
I think that if the question of tuition is raised then a freedom of choice should be required as well. Particularly if I already pay for the system.
Cere
September 9th, 2009
5:16 pm
Yes, I did slip up and call it government money. Sorry. I was just trying to impress upon people that we are taxed all over the place – not just on our property – for schools. It’s much more expensive than you think — for those of us who pay.
ps – to Call it like it is – I do have to say, the best teacher my son had throughout high school was in her early 20s. Worst? A veteran teacher armed with a PhD, a mean streak and a chip on her shoulder.
Cere
September 9th, 2009
5:24 pm
Brian Cosby, I have not read your book, but my personal favorite book on education is called, “Dumbing Us Down – The Hidden Curriculum of Compulsory Schooling” by John Gatto. Mr Gatto clues us into the fact that schools are actually succeeding at their intended purpose – “to ensure a docile, malleable workforce to meet the growing, changing needs of corporate capitalism” (the production and consumption of material goods). Further, he tells us that the job that has shown the greatest growth in the last 30 years is that of Wal-Mart clerk. Second is McDonald’s burger flipper. Third – Burger King flipper. And 4th? Elementary school teacher.
Jessica
September 9th, 2009
5:25 pm
Why not provide free and mandatory education only until a student can read, write, and do math on an eighth grade level? Schools could concentrate their resources on making sure kids master these basic skills they need to function in society. Also, if the kids can finish compulsory schooling early by mastering the skills faster instead of being stuck there for a cerain number of years, you can be sure that most of them will be VERY motivated to learn.
So, what would happen to these kids after they “graduate” from eighth grade? There would be plenty of private high schools for the academically motivated ones, and probably lots of subsidies and scholarships for disadvantaged students. I’m sure that more specialized schools for the arts and vocational training would pop up as well.
For the kids who don’t want to go to school anymore, there would likely be apprenticeships and low-paying job opportunities (after a few months of pushing a mop for below minimum wage, a lot of kids would probably rethink their plans and get more education anyway).
As for all the “extras” that schools provide, like music and sports, I think you would find more community-based programs and private clubs would be created to provide those opportunities.
My point is that public schooling needs to narrow its focus and do something WELL, and that somthing should be teaching kids the basics.
Mary
September 9th, 2009
5:35 pm
Okay does this mean property taxes would go away..NO..they would still use them too. Also what happens when you have two or more kids..the bill gets very high..so I am sure at some point this might happen but I hope my kids are long gone when it does..or maybe home schooling is becoming more apparent if this happens..
ACH
September 9th, 2009
5:36 pm
Zachs Mom: Please let me clarify. Aa large amount of money is spent on transportation. The question is should schools charge tuition in addition to whatever you may already pay. I don’t know of schools that provide for “extras” as this burden is the responsibility of the student and guardians/parents. Example, football teams and bands often require participants to pay for uniform cost, etc. While I love high school football and attend several games a year, the equipment for participants is usually not provided by the school. If the guarantee is for education, how then is the responsibility of the school to provide for transportation? My point is that why charge additional for the “basic” function of the school (provide teachers and instruction)? You already pay for the basic structure whether or not you use it. But additional functions should be paid for by those who use them. I mean this as an alternative to charging everyone tuition for the basic function that is already paid for by everyone. If you choose to take advantage of a service then shouldn’t you bear the costs of the system that you use? Of course, as someone mentioned earlier, many people already take advantage of the system and use services that they shoulder no burden for. Simply put, a restructuring of the system not an additional to what is currently in place. If you choose to use a bus then you would be charged accordingly for the use of it. But too much in the system is broken with administration and services that do not fit the requirement of filling a basic service. Since you already pay some sort of taxation or tuition for your child to attend school and the services offered, I do not recommend nor do I support an additional charge at this time. I would prefer a system where you pay for the services that you actually use.
Cere
September 9th, 2009
5:47 pm
Oh – and let’s not forget the penny sales tax called SPLOST that we’ve been paying for years in so many counties to pay for school construction.
ACH
September 9th, 2009
6:00 pm
Splost? Or how we tax ourselves further and feel good about it?
georgia parent
September 9th, 2009
6:23 pm
Remove my property tax and have everyone pay their way, I am good with that. No problem. I own property and many do not. I am already paying for non property owners. Then dismantle the U.S. Dept of Ed and the STate DOE and give me a voucher for the remainder… as everyone should have a voucher. As long as school is compulsory and you are mandated to go to a particular school, this will not happen. The difference with community college is that you choose to go there. You can go to this community college or that community college. We, parents have no choice, so it would never fly.
ScienceTeacher671
September 9th, 2009
6:53 pm
If we’re going to have compulsory education, we’re either going to have to provide transportation to our schools, or we’re going to have to build more smaller schools scattered throughout the school districts within walking distance of all students.
ACH
September 9th, 2009
7:10 pm
Don’t we already have compulsory education? One thing that I found interesting when I lived in Texas, the school district in town did not provide transportation to those within what the district determined to be walking distance. Additionally, I’ve not made a point of doing away with transportation but rather make it a “user pay” system. But that is only after a restructuring of the current finance system in schools. But one point I would like to make is that the city school that I attended did not provide transportation to anyone. It was the parent/guardian responsibility. As much a anything else, personal responsibility becomes a critical factor.
As far as smaller schools go, I’m all for that anyway. But one question that I would like someone to explain is that why MUST we provide transportation? Do all public school systems provide transportation? And if not, why/how do those systems operate? Under the current system, yes, transportation availability is the status quo and will always be that way much like anything else that government provides. But isn’t this the whole point of the discussion? Maybe it is time to reconfigure the system?
And in regards to property taxes and the such, haven’t we seen enough examples of government systems spending beyond their means? I wish it were more ideal and their was true accountability but that’s another subject. I just wish imposed systems were more accountable to the user and the user more responsible and accountable to their own needs.
V for Vendetta
September 9th, 2009
7:53 pm
Maureen,
Have you actually relented and conceded my point that people will fail to value something until a value is placed on it? I doubt it, but your post tends to (mistakenly) lean in that direction. This concept, assuming public education remains largely intact as it is, is yet another burden placed on the shoulders of the producers. They already pay more taxes than everyone else. Now you want to further burden them by expecting some sort of contribution? What would be the first thing the moochers would cry out if such a plan were implemented: “I can’t afford to pay for this; I’m on welfare.” “I can’t afford to pay for this; I have six mouths to feed.” “I can’t afford to pay for this; I haven’t had all of the chances you’ve had.”
Who should pay for it?
You guessed it.
Maureen's accountability metric
September 9th, 2009
7:56 pm
Maureen why are you seemingly willing to discuss every idea Brian Cosby brings to the table except removing chronically disruptive students from the learning environment?
Maybe since Brian Cosby seems to have her ear, he can educate her to some realities of the classroom, as she currently thinks there is “no data to support” the contention that it’s a “pressing” issue.
food for thought
September 9th, 2009
8:07 pm
I think Mr. Crosby is 100% dead-on in his assertion that we don’t value that which is free – please notice that all the comments against his idea all mention some variation of the statement “well, I already pay property taxes” – most of those who receive that property tax bill AREN’T the problem, because they do know that “free education” isn’t really free. The problem comes from renters (not to pick on renters – I was one for a long time – and rather self-conscious about it, too). While I know they pay property tax as part of their rent, they don’t see it as a separate charge earmarked for school. Renters often don’t have a vested interest in maintaining the schools because it doesn’t affect their property value. The majority of students I see who either have academic or behavioral issues are the highly transient ones.
On transportation – you could try living in Nashua, NH, like my sister – not only are their property taxes about three times what ours are , there are no school buses for high school. The kids take the city bus to school – younger kids’ families are charged $50 a semester for the bus (something like that, anyway).
The town where I grew up in Massachusetts has much higher taxes than we do here, but parents don’t have to provide tissues and hand sanitizers.
It all comes down to you get what you pay for, and here in Georgia, we don’t seem to be willing to pay for much, yet we turn around and complain that we’re being nickeled and dimed.
ScienceTeacher671
September 9th, 2009
8:59 pm
When I was growing up, students who lived within two miles of school weren’t provided with transportation by the school district. However, in our district, there are students who live 20+ miles from the school, and some of their families don’t have reliable transportation. Since those students are required to be at school, they need transportation.
Assuming all of the families could and did transport those students in private automobiles, there surely would be a traffic jam at the schools!
Lee
September 9th, 2009
9:41 pm
Personally, if you are going to have “public schools”, I think the public should only pay for the “brick and mortar” and the parents of students should pay for the operating expenses (teacher salaries, books, utilities, etc)
Can’t pay? Here’s a mop and broom – you can work it off.
Which is exactly why tuition for public schools will never work. Too many “entitled” piglets are too used to suckling on the public teat.