2009.10.06
Editorial: Higher education spending
Investing in higher ed
Virginia underfunds its colleges and universities at the cost of its economy.
Transportation might get most of the attention in Richmond, but Virginia underfunds other core government services, too. Higher education has been the ugly stepchild of the state budget for years.
The well-respected Weldon Cooper Center for Public Service at the University of Virginia recently released an in-depth analysis of higher education's economic impact on the state. It offers fresh evidence that when lawmakers shortchange higher education, they harm the commonwealth.
RSS feed 
I have my doubts about this study. If more money went to colleges and universities would the Weldon Cooper Center gain financially? If their basic premis is correct should n't the state be flushed in tax revenues? It seems like for the past 40 or so years, there have been countless social and educational programs on the state and federal that will "pay for themselves". If that was the case, the state and federal government would be running surplusses and looking at more tax breaks.
Let the students pay for the increased costs! Since the students are the primary benficiaries of education and the majority of college students are legal adults, let them pay the costs. If they need to take on additional debt, that will be a teachable moment: nothing in life is free: are these costs worth it to me? Maybe the majors that are not challenging academically or helpful in the job market will go away. If more adults thought out the costs of a decision, maybe this country would not be in such an economic bind.
Also how did higher education become a core government service? Should we cut secondary education budgets? How about less polce?
Comment by Patt — October 6, 2009 @ 9:40 am
"The well-respected Weldon Cooper Center for Public Service at the University of Virginia"
Again, respected by whom?
By VBHEC who sponsored this study whose goal has always been to extract $$$ from Richmond? Or maybe by Google CEO (and 0bama adviser) Eric Schmidt 2008 keynote speaker for the VBHEC gala? He's the one who drew thunderous applause from the membership with his lavish praise for Tim Kaine's massive spending plans. So if you can't see where this "study" is coming from, you aren't trying.
Comment by Suzie — October 6, 2009 @ 12:15 pm
Why is government money so good? What about private money? Is Lexington a nice town because of VMI? Would it be a better town if W&L was a public school? Would it be a worse town if VMI was a private school?
It is hard to imagine that public spending is the catalyst that so many on the Left make it out to be. Indeed, what evidence is their that government is so much smarter in spending OUR money than we are.
The University of Virginia would not be a lesser school if it became a private institution, and Charlottesville would not become a desolate wasteland if the Governor could no longer appoint trustees to its Board. Furthermore, if Charlottesville were a center of industry as opposed to education, it would be different, but likely not worse. Who knows, it might be better.
Comment by Glen Franklin Koontz — October 6, 2009 @ 12:35 pm
OK, I'll bite on #3. What role, if any, do you think the public should play in ensuring its members can obtain an affordable higher education?
Comment by Luanne T. — October 6, 2009 @ 1:00 pm
Well, Luanne T., to answer your question, if by public, you mean government, there is no role to be played in ensuring that someone can obtain an affordable higher education.
On the other hand, should those who are interested and have the means contribute to scholarship funds and educational institutions? Absolutely. That is already being done, and perhaps if fewer dollars were sucked from the private sector by government, there would be more.
But my point really went to the conclusion of the study that public monies were an important investment in education, which I suggest is false. If the conclusion had been that monies need to be invested in education, that would have drawn a different reaction from me. For example, Andrew Carnegie's efforts and investments built great libraries across the country. Were those libraries lesser institutions because they were constructed with private money? I don't think so, just as I do not believe that they would have been better had they been built by government.
Education is a good like everything else. Perhaps it generally requires more money at times, and less at others. But the only way we know that is by letting the market function, and allow folks to vote with their dollars. And when government taxes individuals more, they have less to spend on lots of thing, including education. For some, education will be a great priority (I spend a fortune on it for my daughter), while others will place a lower priority (be they childless, or they choose to raise their children differently; everyone does not need a BA/BS). Let the people decide for themselves and their families. Let's leave Richmond and Washington out of the equation.
Comment by Glen Franklin Koontz — October 6, 2009 @ 1:26 pm
Carnegie's libraries were constructed with his private funds, mostly at the request of towns and universities. Those that survive do so mostly because of the infusion of public funds.
Interesting that you selected the libraries, which are viewed as one of the great equalizers in opening up learning and education to all despite their economic class.
I understand your premise, Glen. However, the fate of a child's eventual adulthood should not solely be determined by his parents unwillingness or inability to value education. Society benefits by increasing educational opportunities.
Your post raises two more questions:
Do you think the government should not support libraries and rely solely on private donors?
What are your thoughts on the joint partnership between Roanoke's government, schools and business community to subsidize tuition at Virginia Western?
Comment by Luanne T. — October 6, 2009 @ 1:45 pm
I do not think that government should support libraries, if for no other reason than it puts government in the position of deciding what information will be available. Whether by inclusion or omission, government will be deciding the libraries' contents. As with education, I much prefer that individuals make those decisions.
I prefer not opine on the joint partnership you mention, as I do not live in Roanoke (I reside in Martinsville and northern Virginia), and thus I would defer to Roanokers making their own decisions; that should be their perogative. But as a general proposition, I abhor public/private partnerships.
Comment by Glen Franklin Koontz — October 6, 2009 @ 1:55 pm
Luanne #6
"However, the fate of a child's eventual adulthood should not solely be determined by his parents unwillingness or inability to value education"
So...if not the parents, then the only alternative is the government?
Comment by Suzie — October 6, 2009 @ 3:01 pm
@6
However, the fate of a child's eventual adulthood should not solely be determined by his parents unwillingness or inability to value the child.
Comment by Henry — October 6, 2009 @ 3:18 pm
Suzie, I didn't say the "only" alternative is the government. Churches, civic clubs, private foundations and benefactors all play a role. But "the government" which I view of, for and by the people and not some evil entity has a responsibility to ensure equal opportunities for all, not just those who happen to be born to means.
Comment by Luanne T. — October 6, 2009 @ 3:19 pm
Luanne #10
"But "the government" which I view of, for and by the people and not some evil entity has a responsibility to ensure equal opportunities for all, not just those who happen to be born to means.
Your thinking would be fine and dandy if Santa Claus funded this benevolent government of yours. But it isn't Santa. It's REAL PEOPLE you are demanding money be taken from to fulfill your stated ideal of equality. There is nothing constitutional or moral about that.
Comment by Suzie — October 6, 2009 @ 3:35 pm
I remember some time back, 5 years maybe, they were considering a cigarette tax to help fund higher public education. I don't even remember if it passed (I don't smoke). My niece, who was attending VT to be a dental hygenist, cried and cried about how that tax should be passed because college cost too much.
And then I asked her: "What in the world has smoking got to do with higher education? Connect those dots for me. How are the 2 related in any way?" She got pretty quiet then.
I followed up with: "this state better hope that, by God, the people who smoke don't stop doing it or else it will bankrupt."
This study is a long winded, typical, 75 PAGES LONG, creation full of so many erroneous assumptions it isn't even funny. All VGDP does not come from higher educated people. Some of the higher educated people in this state were not educated HERE (my aforementioned niece's husband graduated from Navy and is flying out of Oceana). Some of the people educated HERE are not from this state. Some of the people from this state educated here pursue their career goals elsewhere.
Swiss cheese doesn't have as many holes in it. The arguments presented in this study wouldn't win a junior high debate.
Comment by Bob H — October 6, 2009 @ 4:01 pm
I am all for limiting the power and size of the federal government. However, I am not against all local and state government programs. Public education is one thing I believe is in our best interest to ensure is available to all. I don't approve of federal government trying to regulate public education, but people paying local and state taxes to fund local and state schools is not unreasonable.
Comment by VT Hokie — October 6, 2009 @ 4:04 pm
Thank you, VT Hokie, @13.
Comment by Luanne T. — October 6, 2009 @ 4:18 pm
If state and local taxes are to be used for public education, why not inject some fairness and accountability into the process through the voucher system. WHY should parents who send their children to private schools, and thus do not burden the public schools, not have their tax monies used for public education refunded to them so that they may use them as they see fit for their child's education? After all, if public education is so wonderful (it isn't), very few, if any, will drop out. And for those who do, since they are not causing the public system any expense, why should they pay?
Comment by Glen Franklin Koontz — October 6, 2009 @ 4:24 pm
Mr. Koontz,
From the time I was 15 until I turned 40, I was working and paying taxes and helping support schools even though I had no child. Should I have been given a rebate for all those years? Should I be given a rebate again when my son is done with school?
Everyone pays taxes to support schools because every single person benefits from having a well-educated population.
Somehow, I doubt private schools would step up and educate everyone if the public school system disappeared.
Comment by Dan Radmacher — October 6, 2009 @ 4:31 pm
VT Hokie #13
"but people paying local and state taxes to fund local and state schools is not unreasonable.
We do fund state schools. That isn't the issue. The issue is taxpayers paying everybody's way. That isn't right.
Comment by Suzie — October 6, 2009 @ 4:32 pm
Dan Radmacher:
Private schools already educate more folks than public schools, despite the fact that more students attend public schools.
And where is the proof that everyone benefits from having a well educated population? And even if it is true--and I am pro-learning--so what? Does that mean that government is the means to achieve that end? The results we get from public schools would demonstrate that the answer is no.
And why do you so doubt the private schools? Every objective study demonstrates that private schools do a wonderful job educating their students; in Washington, D.C. poor families compete mightily (or they did until the Democrats ended the program) to obtain scholarships to send their children to private schools. Is there something inherently horrible about the public school students that would cause all private schools to reject them (and their parents' dollars)?
And how in the world did men like Jefferson, Washington, Madison, Franklin, Adams, et al. become educated and create such a genius as our Constitution without having attended a public school?
Public schools only date back to the late 19th century. A world of literary, historical and artistic treasures were created before then, all without the benefit of a government education.
Comment by Glen Franklin Koontz — October 6, 2009 @ 4:49 pm
Public schools make convenient whipping boys. In some places, they are pretty bad, I'll grant. But I know far more accomplished people who attended public school than those who attended private school. A blanket condemnation of the entire system is ridiculous and unfounded, especially considering the sheer number of Americans who would have only the most basic education if not for its existence (what was the literacy rate in Jefferson's age, Mr. Koontz? Do you really believe America would prosper better by a return to the days when only the elite could get an education - and perhaps only white, male landowners could vote?)
Comment by Dan Radmacher — October 6, 2009 @ 5:06 pm
I am not calling for more ignorance any more than I am suggesting everyone should have a university education. But why should parents not be empowered to make choices for their children, instead of sending them to PS 13 by default? Some parents would choose Cave Spring, and others would take their vouchers and choose Roanoke Catholic. But shouldn't parents have the choice? And shouldn't choice be exercised by more than the "elite"? Currently, only parents who can afford to pay the taxes to support public education AND private school tuition have any choice. Would it not be better, and more uplifting if EVERY family could make that choice?
A voucher system would not necessarily hurt a public school system. It might just make it better. Who knows? But what is certain, is that the children would be better off when their parents make their educational choice, instead of shoving them into a mandatory default system.
Comment by Glen Franklin Koontz — October 6, 2009 @ 5:12 pm
Again, Mr. Koontz, parents don't pay taxes to send just their children to schools. Every parent has the choice you ask for already. All a voucher system would do is drain resources from public schools.
It would be interesting to see, though, just how well that vaunted private education would perform if, like public schools, private schools were required to take all students, regardless of ability, regardless of background, regardless of enthusiasm, regardless of any advantage at home.
Make that part of the voucher system, Mr. Koontz, and I'd be tempted to go along just to see how that experiment turned out.
Comment by Dan Radmacher — October 6, 2009 @ 5:34 pm
Mr. Radmacher:
The public schools--the government schools--have no moral claim on the resources of parents who seek to educate their children. Why should the public schools receive resources from students who impose no burden upon them?
The fact is that most parents do not have a choice, because most cannot afford to pay twice. Oppressive government mandates rob them of their ability to choose a better path for their children, and that is wrong.
It would be equally wrong to mandate that all private schools be required to admit any student, irrespective of ability or enthusiasm. No one has the right to demand the services of another, absent the other's consent.
Is everyone going to receive the same education? No, because that is not possible. Students sitting in the same room being lectured by the same teacher do not receive the same education, because everyone is different. We are not a nation of interchangeable subjects, who are to act at the beck and call of the government. Everything is not the same, because everyone is not the same. Some will do better, and some will do worse. Life is not fair.
But again, since everyone is not the same, some very well educated folks will make some incredibly stupid decisions, and perhaps not be the raging success that their genes, monies and education might otherwise portend for them. And some other not so educated folks will succeed beyond their wildest dreams because while they may lack a framed diploma, they are driven and smart enough to succeed at life. Many plumbers and mechanics do far better than some lawyers, insurance executives, or newspaper editors.
The surest way for an individual to excel is to give them the freedom to become themselves. A good start toward that end is to give them and their parents the freedom to choose their education.
Comment by Glen Franklin Koontz — October 6, 2009 @ 5:46 pm
#19 Dan - "But I know far more accomplished people who attended public school than those who attended private school."
Sadly, Dan, public schools these days are nothing like the public schools of 40 years ago. Budget cuts, unions, and lack of parental involvement has made things very different...and our kids are suffering because of it.
Comment by Patrick — October 6, 2009 @ 5:47 pm
Public schools are as much a jobs program as they are an educational program.
Comment by ernie — October 6, 2009 @ 6:06 pm
I just get tired of the liberal knee-jerk response to every so-called study; Increase Government Funding!!. Education is a many-headed hydra. There are so many parts to it and it takes a huge share of the budget. It's hard to imagine that a good number of nice but unnecessary extras couldn't be pared at least temporarily.
I was wondering if any university or government study ever concluded: "We believe the shortcomings we've studied are minor and can be remedied through non-financial means. No further studies or funding necessary!"
Comment by Suzie — October 6, 2009 @ 6:11 pm
If investing in higher education means paying 150k plus salaries to tenured wooly headed liberal professors who work maybe 15 hours a week I am against it.
Comment by waynep — October 6, 2009 @ 7:54 pm
Wayne,
True. Nobody ever talks about putting professorial and teacher tenure cuts into play. Those yapping loudest about "GOP intransigence" tend to be mighty inflexible on tenure.
Comment by Suzie — October 6, 2009 @ 10:35 pm
@26
I wouldn't think political disposition would matter. Our higher ed system is wrought with these types of state employees. Plus many others that are just hanging on to pad their pension.
Comment by ernie — October 7, 2009 @ 7:53 am
Excuse me, post #28 correction.
I would think that political disposition would NOT matter.
Comment by ernie — October 7, 2009 @ 7:55 am
Hey Dan,
Where does Barack send his kids to school?
Comment by Bob H — October 7, 2009 @ 8:20 am
Bob H.
That's just it. Private education (along with private health care) is OK for the liberal elites but not everyone else. Please don't ask them to match their deeds with their words.
Comment by Suzie — October 7, 2009 @ 1:46 pm
That's goofy. I work with a bunch of conservative elites. They all, without exception attended private schools and send their kids to private schools. Can we discuss things without interjecting political leanings?
Comment by ernie — October 7, 2009 @ 6:03 pm
BobH...
Do you honestly think that ANY president would send their kids to an ordinary public school? Do you have any clue as to the kind of security that would be involved?
On a wild guess, I would say that probably Amy Carter was the last child of a sitting president to attend a public school.
Comment by Will — October 7, 2009 @ 6:29 pm
The point should be that you don't need to be "elite" to choose to send your children to the school of your choice, public or private. You ought to be able to use your dollars--dollars that you pay in taxes for education--to make that choice. The decision should not be foisted upon you by government mandate.
Comment by Glen Franklin Koontz — October 7, 2009 @ 6:40 pm
Mr. Koontz,
I don't know how to make this more clear: Parents of schoolchildren do not pay any more in taxes than any other taxpayer. So why should they get money from the system to help them make a purely personal decision? I don't have a child in public schools right now. Should I get a rebate? Should childless taxpayers get money every year because they don't have children in public schools?
I don't think so, and can think of absolutely no reason why parents of school-aged children should be able to get money back to pay for a personal decision.
Comment by Dan Radmacher — October 7, 2009 @ 7:15 pm
Dan Radmacher:
I don't know how to make this more clear; the government should not be forcing people to pay it for educating their children. And I have never argued that those parents pay more; my point has been that the taxes paid by most parents for education prevent them from choosing to send their children to private school. Parents with greater means can afford to pay BOTH their education taxes, and private school tuition. Most parents cannot; why should they not be allowed the means to make a choice.
Indeed, I would think that most "progressives" would be all for helping lower income folks to achieve a better education for their children. Or is the point that the government knows best. Is this what we are in for health care, where only "rich" folks can afford taxes to fund the "public option" and their own private health care, while folks of more modest means are relegated to their only option, the "public option"?
If private schools are a personal decision, then so should be public education. The government should not be allowed to take tax monies from folks for education, and then mandate that their children be educated by it [and that is exactly what it is for most, a mandate to send their children to government schools].
As for those without children? Absolutely you should not be taxed for educating others' children. Why should you?
See Dan Radmacher? I even want lefties like you to keep your own money.
Comment by Glen Franklin Koontz — October 7, 2009 @ 7:35 pm
I want to be taxed to educate other people's children, Mr. Koontz, because I believe a well-educated populace serves the general welfare better than probably any other initiative, public or private, ever has or ever could.
I benefited from a public education, and because of that have been able to make a very good living. Why should I, or anyone, want to deny that to others?
But, unwittingly or not, you've exposed yourself, Mr. Koontz. If you want everyone to pay for their own education - which, clearly, you do, since you don't want anyone else to be taxed to educate others' children - then you do want to return to the days when only the well-off could educate their families.
I doubt few others will join you in that crusade, but have at it. I can only wish you spectacular failure.
Comment by Dan Radmacher — October 7, 2009 @ 7:42 pm
Interesting how the topic morphed from college education to the lower levels. It apparently is the goal for liberals to get "the well off" to finance all education expenses from pre-K through college. Then what? We mandate four years of college for all people?
Comment by Suzie — October 7, 2009 @ 8:06 pm
Suzie - why always the liberals rhetoric? I don't agree with paying for everyone's kids to go to school. I also think the higher ed system is bloated with state employees that are not very productive and over paid. So now categorize me. Again, why must we label everyone with a liberal or conservative tag when having a discussion?
Comment by ernie — October 7, 2009 @ 8:25 pm
Well Suzie, it sounds like you have been reading President obama's website, because that is EXACTLY what the LEFT wants to do.
But Mr. Radmacher, you are free to donate funds to public education. But you wish to go further, and force everyone to also fund public education. Just like you, and others, want to force everyone to fund health insurance. And soon you will wish to force everyone to fund housing, food, what have you.
What about choice? When the Left talks about reproductive "rights", the word "choice" is all the rage. But when it comes to everything else, government mandates, one size fits all, is the way to go, and "choice" is never allowed.
A public school system would not vanish under my plan. What would happen, though, is some parents of modest means would be able to secure a BETTER education--one of their "choice"--for their children. No one would be mandated, either expressly or by default--to send their child to a public or a private school. In other words, no one would be denied either a public or a private education.
Hey Dan, if the public schools are so wonderful, what are you afraid of? Let people be empowered to CHOOSE!
Comment by Glen Franklin Koontz — October 7, 2009 @ 8:27 pm
@36,
Glen,
Did you ever attend public schools?
Comment by Blue John — October 7, 2009 @ 8:43 pm
@GFK #40: "A public school system would not vanish under my plan."
No, only the funding for it would vanish.
@GFK: "But Mr. Radmacher, you are free to donate funds to public education. But you wish to go further, and force everyone to also fund public education."
If public education is only funded by private individuals, it is no longer public education. Yes, everyone should be forced to fund public education, just as everyone should be forced to fund public roads, a common defense and necessary and beneficial public institutions. Everyone funding them is what makes them public.
@GFK: "No one would be mandated, either expressly or by default--to send their child to a public or a private school. In other words, no one would be denied either a public or a private education."
Why not do the same with health care? Why not guarantee that no one - either expressly or by default - is denied the best health care available, public or private?
By the way, no one is denied the choice you're discussing. They are only denied having the government pay for their choice. Once more, taxpayers with children are no more entitled to get money back to fund their child's private schooling than a taxpayer without children is entitled to a similar sum back to spend on whatever he or she chooses. Taxes are not paid to educate your own children. They are paid to educate every child.
Comment by Dan Radmacher — October 7, 2009 @ 8:55 pm
Wait just one damn minute! Roads, bridges, armed forces, science endeavors, and such are different. We ALL need those things. We ALL benefit from those things. Now education is a personal thing and therefore should be financed individually. Wait, that makes no sense. We ALL benefit from an educated society. Never mind...
Comment by ernie — October 7, 2009 @ 9:01 pm
Dan Radmacher:
All government money is first taken from taxpayers, BY FORCE. The Left always claims to be for the little guy, the downtrodden, but when it actually comes to doing something to help the little guy improve his lot in life, the Left finds some reason to oppose it.
The only funding that public schools would lose under a voucher program is that money that would have been spent on a student that the public school will not have! Poor black children in D.C. were allowed--due to Republican legislation--the opportunity to attend good private schools of their parents' choice. It was a great success; that is, until President obama and the Democrats ended the program. Apparently poor black children should not be allowed to escape the government plantation that the liberals have so thoughtfully constructed for them.
This country was founded on the principle of individual freedom--not universal government funded anything. If government would quit taking all the money they can from average folks, then those folks could decide better how to live their lives, educate their children, and spend their own money. There would be no need for universal government funded anything.
Or perhaps, that is the Left's fear? The return of individual freedom?
Comment by Glen Franklin Koontz — October 7, 2009 @ 9:07 pm
Ernie:
Roads, bridges and the military are things that are historically done by government, in part, because individuals cannot do these things alone.
Education, on the other hand, most certainly can be done by individuals, and historically has been done by individuals.
WHY would anyone want the government to "teach" (indoctrinate?) their children?
Comment by Glen Franklin Koontz — October 7, 2009 @ 9:11 pm
@44,
See 41, or does the answer blow your theory out of the water?
Comment by Blue John — October 7, 2009 @ 9:12 pm
Hey Blue John,
I certainly wouldn't want the government to "indoctrinate" our children. One of the great challenges our country has overcome is educating the general populace. So the general populace can read a ruler, an instruction manual, a speed limit sign. This basic, public education is certainly as worthy to our population as a good road. Without it, could the uneducated run the machines and such to build these things the individual cannot? Could they be an effective military force?
Comment by ernie — October 7, 2009 @ 9:26 pm
Sorry Blue John. Still waiting for Glen to answer 41. 47 was meant for Glen. Sorry fellas.
Comment by ernie — October 7, 2009 @ 9:28 pm
Ernie:
First, educating children is the responsibility of parents, not the "public".
Second, why must it be a "public" education? Why cannot it be a private education? Why cannot parents be empowered to choose? Should not the parents be the ones to decide their children's education?
Comment by Glen Franklin Koontz — October 7, 2009 @ 9:34 pm
No problem ernie. I like the way you think.
Comment by Blue John — October 7, 2009 @ 9:40 pm
Blue John:
I was educated by Christian fundamentalists in the basement of a fundamentalist church. I read only "The Bible" and the collected works of Ayn Rand.
Comment by Glen Franklin Koontz — October 7, 2009 @ 9:47 pm
Glen,
First - kinda. There's the three Rs. A formal school setting is good for that. Wouldn't want my wife teaching algebra. Then there's the common sense, morals, civics, type of education. Parents certainly should fill this role.
Second - Mustn't be public. If private is one's choice and is feasible, have at it. I don't like the double tuition, public + private, but hard to get around because...
Can't imagine a lot of private schools in the poorest geographies. Supply and demand thing would be a killer. Some parents wouldn't send their kids to school if they didn't HAVE to. So we need a basic option for the ones that don't have access to a private setting. Some the ugliness that comes with the reality or our society almost requires a public option. For the good of everyone else.
In a perfect world I'd tend to agree with you Sir.
Comment by ernie — October 7, 2009 @ 9:51 pm
Average costs to attend public schools Vs. Average cost to attend Private schools.
With the majority of public education costs spread among the populace of any given area, it is relatively easy for a parent to attend public schools.
In a private school system, the cost is mainly borne by the parents and is an excessive burden.
Many private schools have a sponsored agenda, such as religious affiliation, or cultural affiliation, which is indoctrination. Up until the 1840s to 1860s this was the norm for education as most schools were religious in nature, much as in the Middle East today.
Public schools, due to the church-state separation, cannot teach religion, or push a cultural agenda.
Hence you do not have all black public schools, or all hispanic public schools or even all white public schools.
Comment by joe Mostowey — October 7, 2009 @ 9:57 pm
Welcome Mr. Mostowey!
Comment by ernie — October 7, 2009 @ 10:02 pm
I'd like to weigh in here as a parent. I will sacrifice all that I must to put my child in the best possible environment to learn to love learning. Life is a classroom, and I am pleased to still be a student. I hope the same for my child. I refuse, however, to send her to a place where I have NO INPUT about what she is taught or when (e.g., sex education for primary school children??? Obama addressing the entire US school population with no prior comment on subject matter???).
I'm all for helping people be better parents and teachers to their own children as a community. Honestly, if I must pay the tab for every child to be taught certain skills, then I want to have some say in who gets to have children.
Couldn't agree more, Mr. Koontz. The primary responsibility for educating a child belongs to the parents of that child. If a basic foundation was being given to each child AT HOME, AND their parents could choose schools based on more than government drawn districts, think of the potential America's children could achieve!
Comment by Betsy — October 7, 2009 @ 10:02 pm
Glen,
Sounds like a real blast. Did you get to feed the snakes?
Comment by Blue John — October 7, 2009 @ 10:07 pm
Ernie:
I am not advocating the abolition of public schools. But a voucher system would allow those who cannot afford to pay both education taxes and private tuition a choice. It would help primarily the lower and middle classes. It would not affect me one bit; my daughter attends private school, and that is where she shall remain. But I truly believe that private schools should not be a bastion for the privilege, just as public schools should not be a place for those who have no choice.
Individual freedom. That is what made this country great.
Comment by Glen Franklin Koontz — October 7, 2009 @ 10:07 pm
Mr. Mostowey:
Secularism is not indoctrination, but religion is? Please!
Comment by Glen Franklin Koontz — October 7, 2009 @ 10:10 pm
@53
Joe-
Are you telling me that you are a proponent of having children not say "under God" in the pledge?
And, if it takes a LAW to get parents to send their children to school, you have proven my biggest complaint: we are now governing to the lowest common denominator.
What about homeschooling? The expense is far less than the private schools that are a "burden" filled with Christian radicals, and there are families banding together to provide a well-rounded curriculum and social opportunities.
The options are limitless. Most people can make a pretty good choice for their own children WITHOUT government intervention.
Comment by Betsy — October 7, 2009 @ 10:11 pm
So, why not offer vouchers for health care while you're at it? I thought you opposed the government giving people money for things they ought to pay for themselves?
Since you believe that no one should pay "education taxes," you are, in fact advocating the abolition of public schools.
You may fool yourself, but no one else.
Comment by Dan Radmacher — October 7, 2009 @ 10:12 pm
Betsy - Sounds like a public school system wouldn't work for you. I mean if something is objectionable to you personally then it can't be taught to your child. I'm thinking home school or some kind of private, personalized and monitored system.
Come on. "some say in who gets to have children." Besides the creepiness of that statement then I suppose you need some say in everything funded by our tax money?
Comment by ernie — October 7, 2009 @ 10:16 pm
#55 Obama addressing the entire US school population with no prior comment on subject matter???)."
Like Reagan did in 1988?
Or President Bush addressing the nation's schoolchildren in an address to students at Alice Deal Junior High School in Washington, DC, which was videotaped for broadcast to students around the country. In his remarks, the president discussed the America 2000 education initiatives and urged the schoolchildren to remain in school.
And then there is always "The pet Goat" read to the students at Emma E. Booker Elementary School on 09-11-01 by George W. Bush
Public school parents have lots of input via parent teacher meetings, PTA meetings, School board elections and political pressure via local and state politicians.
Comment by joe Mostowey — October 7, 2009 @ 10:17 pm
Dan Radmacher:
You're right. No vouchers. INSTEAD, let everyone keep their money in the first place, and then there will be no need for government funding in most areas. Why did I not think of that?
And please, be civil. Don't accuse me of "fool[ing]" anyone. I am the most straightforward contributor you have. I seriously doubt anything I write surprises you.
Comment by Glen Franklin Koontz — October 7, 2009 @ 10:22 pm
Every voucher issued for private schools increases the funding shortfall for public schools.
The majority of people who have children pay less in taxes than they would pay in tuition and assorted school costs for private schools.
When their children are grown, many of these parents then see their own personal wealth and resources grow, becoming a greater tax asset to their community as others before them did.
Comment by joe Mostowey — October 7, 2009 @ 10:24 pm
Mr. Mostowey makes a wonderful point. There is way too much government in schools, from the President to the School Board. And everyone knows the PTA is a commie front group, aligned with the NEA.
Welcome aboard the freedom train Mr. Mostowey. Next stop, private education!
Comment by Glen Franklin Koontz — October 7, 2009 @ 10:25 pm
Hey Glen,
Yeah, I'm not sure where I stand on the voucher system. Seems fair but then we set a precedent that logically should be extended to all public services? At least we seem to agree the gov't funded public education system has a valid purpose? Is our difference the ability to opt out of the public option (I can't believe I just used that for education not health insurance) and get a refund? Crazy, makes me think the current education system is what the President is striving for in regard to health care, without knowing it. I'm rambling. Let's don't go there
Comment by ernie — October 7, 2009 @ 10:30 pm
Glen Franklin Koontz wrote: "Secularism is not indoctrination, but religion is? Please!"
The greatest problem in the world today is religious indoctrination.
The Islamic fundamentalists are no more, nor less fanatical that their fundamentalist Christian counter parts.
Would you argue that the Islamic terrorists are not indoctrinated?
During the thousand years or so years before the American Revolution, Europe was ruled by first the Catholic Church, then differing sects of the catholic church, Wars, pogroms and laws based on biblical interpretations made for a chancy life for anyone who's religious views or fervor failed to meet the standards of whoever was in charge.
As many people during the settlement of the original colonies fled to the new world to escape religion, as came to practice religion.
So yes, Religion is indoctrination.
Comment by joe Mostowey — October 7, 2009 @ 10:33 pm
Ernie-
I would just like to wait until my child is old enough to tie her own shoes before she is put into a class that talks about homosexuality or conception. Perhaps it's prudish of me, but I learned those essential things at home. I took philosphy classes-- lots of them-- in college. I believe in God and Creation, so I can assure that I am a fan of learning about things one finds questionable or objectionable in the interest of education-- and forming opinions.
And, yes, I would like "some say" in how MY MONEY is spent. Many years ago, it was just called my vote. But that was back in the good old days when elected officals actually read legislation before they voted for it.
Comment by Betsy — October 7, 2009 @ 10:33 pm
@GFK #63: "You're right. No vouchers. INSTEAD, let everyone keep their money in the first place, and then there will be no need for government funding in most areas."
As Mr. Mostoway suggests in the post following yours, taxpayers with children pay far less in taxes devoted to education than they would spend on private education. That would be a fool's bargain for a majority of the population, and I think you know that to be a fact.
Take away government education - and the taxes to pay for it - and most parents wouldn't be able afford to educate their children properly, if at all.
Again, that appears to be your goal. And, again, I doubt you'll get many people to follow you on that quest.
Comment by Dan Radmacher — October 7, 2009 @ 10:35 pm
Says who, other than Mr. Mostowey, that is. Taxpayer funds per student are more than enough to pay student tuition at private schools. Maybe you cannot send your child to Choate, but you could send your child to Shenandoah Christian Academy. Choice doesn't mean that you get to choose anything; rather, you choose what you can afford. And if the government takes less in taxes from you, you can afford a whole lot more.
Comment by Glen Franklin Koontz — October 7, 2009 @ 10:40 pm
@ 62
"Public school parents have lots of input via parent teacher meetings, PTA meetings, School board elections and political pressure via local and state politicians."
Joe,
If a tree falls in the woods and no one is there to hear it. . . If a concerned parent talks at PTA meetings and the like, NO ONE HEARS THEM. And certainly no one acts to change anything. Enlisting help from politicans? Are you serious? Local politicans are just as powerless as I am. And far less concerned.
Comment by Betsy — October 7, 2009 @ 10:42 pm
Betsy wrote"Are you telling me that you are a proponent of having children not say "under God" in the pledge?And, if it takes a LAW to get parents to send their children to school, you have proven my biggest complaint: we are now governing to the lowest common denominator.What about homeschooling? The expense is far less than the private schools that are a "burden" filled with Christian radicals, and there are families banding together to provide a well-rounded curriculum and social opportunities.The options are limitless. Most people can make a pretty good choice for their own children WITHOUT government intervention.
How about "under Allah" in the pledge? Wouldn't you say it's unfair for the taxpaying Muslims in Virginia to have to pray to your God?
Or "under Buddha"? Don't the Asian parent who pay taxes have a right to chose who their kids pray to?
Perhaps "under the great spirit"?
The fact is everyone who pays taxes should not be forced to sublimate their beliefs to placate the majority religion.
Parents who are strapped for cash often keep kids at home, to work at family endeavors. Some parents are bullied by their kids into letting them skip school, and some parents still doubt the value of an education, so yes, a law is necessary.
We are not governing to the lowest denominator, we are attempting to give as many people an opportunity for an education as possible.
Schools generally teach community standards. There are very few people who will take their kids out of public schools. The percentage is so low that Vouchers have yet to gain much traction.
And many home schooled and private schooled children receive no better, nor worse an education than their peers in public schools.
Comment by joe Mostowey — October 7, 2009 @ 10:44 pm
You're right, Dan. Let's accept the substandard system because all other options couldn't possibly work. Just because Mr. Koontz advocates a voucher system doesn't make it a foolhearty idea.
The system is clearly broken. Instead of arguing with people we find disagreeable, why don't we all try to make CHANGE?
It would be a better place to find great educational opportunities if there was choice-- and competition. Same for health care.
Comment by Betsy — October 7, 2009 @ 10:47 pm
Glen Franklin Koontz wrote:"Mr. Mostowey makes a wonderful point. There is way too much government in schools, from the President to the School Board. And everyone knows the PTA is a commie front group, aligned with the NEA.
Welcome aboard the freedom train Mr. Mostowey. Next stop, private education!"
The freedom train rides the public rails. Public schools provide the vast majority of Americans with an education - without the baggage of tying that education to religion or political agendas.
The politics in schools are a result of parental participation.
Commies? Sounds like someone from the 1950s who got too infatuated with Joe McCarthy.
Comment by joe Mostowey — October 7, 2009 @ 10:49 pm
Let's look on the bright side. Being good capitalists, we can take advantage of the uneducated kids and move the sweat shops back to the states. We will have to stop funding OSHA, and gut the labor laws, but what do those government agencies know in the first place. We can start putting the "Made In America" label on our underwear and feel a sense of pride as we shop in Walmart. Win,win for everyone!!
Comment by Blue John — October 7, 2009 @ 10:55 pm
Joe - "The freedom train rides the public rails. Public schools provide the vast majority of Americans with an education - without the baggage of tying that education to religion or political agendas."
Case closed. Your case. Next case.
Comment by ernie — October 7, 2009 @ 10:58 pm
Glen Franklin Koontz wrote: "Says who, other than Mr. Mostowey, that is. Taxpayer funds per student are more than enough to pay student tuition at private schools. Maybe you cannot send your child to Choate, but you could send your child to Shenandoah Christian Academy. Choice doesn't mean that you get to choose anything; rather, you choose what you can afford. And if the government takes less in taxes from you, you can afford a whole lot more."
-------------------------------------------------------
The average private school tuition in Virginia is approximately $4500.
Schools funding source is mainly personal property taxes, and most of the people I know pay a lot less in Personal property taxes and real estates taxes than 4500 dollars.
And the majority of people in this area pay a lot less than $4500 in income taxes.
And personal property taxes with real estate taxes also pay for other government services at the local level, such as courthouses, police stations, Jails, and county employees.
So even if everybody got back what they paid in Personal property and real estate taxes, paying for private schools would be a major burden.
Comment by joe Mostowey — October 7, 2009 @ 10:59 pm
Joe old boy, you need to read more history. The only train company built without any public funding whatsoever--no money or land subsidies--was the Great Northern Railroad. That company also holds the distinction of being the only rail company to have avoided bankruptcy at some point in its history. The rail companies who received public assistance? Cost overruns, inferior construction, and eventual bankruptcy.
And parents who choose private education sometimes do choose religious schools? So what? That is their freedom.
Finally, there is a reason why the pledge refers to God, and not Allah or Buddha. Care to guess what it is?
Comment by Glen Franklin Koontz — October 7, 2009 @ 11:02 pm
Joe-
"And many home schooled and private schooled children receive no better, nor worse an education than their peers in public schools."
Agreed. I didn't say we should blow up all public schools, children be damned. I just said that options are good. And sensible people can make good choices.
And, we ARE governing to the LCD. When my tax dollars (and yours) must pay legislators to make laws like "children must be in a car seat" when reasonable parents KNOW that that is the safest way for a child to ride in a car, we are dumbing down America.
Back to my "creepy" comment from earlier: if parents "doubt the value of an education", they should not be parents. And, parents who are bullied by their children into letting them skip school should ask their friends, family, clergy, or someone for help.
"The fact is everyone who pays taxes should not be forced to sublimate their beliefs to placate the majority religion."
Right again, Joe. If none of us paid taxes for this purpose, we could find the parochial school or Buddhist school, or create a home or community school for our own children.
Comment by Betsy — October 7, 2009 @ 11:04 pm
Betsy wrote "Joe,If a tree falls in the woods and no one is there to hear it. . . If a concerned parent talks at PTA meetings and the like, NO ONE HEARS THEM. And certainly no one acts to change anything. Enlisting help from politicans? Are you serious? Local politicans are just as powerless as I am. And far less concerned."
Betsy, there is an average of 20 parents who address the PTA at meetings I've attended - out of hundreds of Parents.
(We have a very small population here.)
If only a very small percentage of a group advocates change, nothing happens. Anywhere. (unless, like the Taliban that percentage is armed and willing to kill)
If you want change, you must enlist others. Unless there is a huge public outcry, or a huge number of parents who complain or advocate change - change does not occur - and its the same in private schools. The silence of the majority is taken for consent.
Change is unsettling to many people- they prefer to remain silent and go with the flow.
Comment by joe Mostowey — October 7, 2009 @ 11:07 pm
Um, Betsy, if reasonable parents KNOW that putting children in car seats is the safest way, then what possible harm is there in making that the law?
Or do you think all parents are reasonable?
Comment by Dan Radmacher — October 7, 2009 @ 11:07 pm
Glen,
Q. Finally, there is a reason why the pledge refers to God, and not Allah or Buddha. Care to guess what it is?
A. Simple, the English language.
Comment by ernie — October 7, 2009 @ 11:08 pm
Folks:
The per student spending in Virginia exceeds $11k per year. Since Mr. Mostowey points out that the average private school tuition is $4.5k, it would hardly devastate public schools to let parents keep at least the average private school tuition in order to facilitate choice in education.
THANKS JOE!!!!!!!
Comment by Glen Franklin Koontz — October 7, 2009 @ 11:09 pm
Perhaps no harm, Dan, but no NEED. Clearly all parents aren't reasonable. Thus, my point about governing to the lowest common denominator. Thank you for your endorsement.
Comment by Betsy — October 7, 2009 @ 11:09 pm
The reason for NOT making the use of child safety seats a law, is freedom. Must government be involved in everything? Except abortion of course. I mean really. I have parents in Martinsville. I don't need parents in Richmond too.
Comment by Glen Franklin Koontz — October 7, 2009 @ 11:11 pm
Ernie:
Close, but no cigar. Try again.
Comment by Glen Franklin Koontz — October 7, 2009 @ 11:18 pm
@GFK #83: "The per student spending in Virginia exceeds $11k per year. Since Mr. Mostowey points out that the average private school tuition is $4.5k, it would hardly devastate public schools to let parents keep at least the average private school tuition in order to facilitate choice in education."
Actually, Mr. Mostowey was wrong. According to this advocacy site for private education, the average tuition for non-sectarian private schools is more than $13,000. Apparently, public school spending isn't so out of line, after all.
You do want to compare apples to apples, don't you, Mr. Koontz?
Comment by Dan Radmacher — October 7, 2009 @ 11:23 pm
Joe old boy, you need to read more history. The only train company built without any public funding whatsoever--no money or land subsidies--was the Great Northern Railroad. That company also holds the distinction of being the only rail company to have avoided bankruptcy at some point in its history. The rail companies who received public assistance? Cost overruns, inferior construction, and eventual bankruptcy.And parents who choose private education sometimes do choose religious schools? So what? That is their freedom.Finally, there is a reason why the pledge refers to God, and not Allah or Buddha. Care to guess what it is?
---------------------------------------------------
Glen, old boy, In 1892, a socialist named Francis Bellamy created the Pledge of Allegiance for *Youth's* *Companion*, a national family magazine foryouth published in Boston. The magazine had the largest national circulation of its day with a circulation around 500 thousand. Two liberal businessmen, Daniel Ford and James Upham, his nephew, owned
*Youth's* *Companion*.The phrase, "Under God," was added by
Congress and President Eisenhower in 1954 at the urging of the Knights
of Columbus(7).The Knights of Columbus is a Catholic fraternal benefits organization headquartered in New Haven, Conn.
http://www.lectlaw.com/files/cur10.htm
------------------------------
The Great Northern Railway (reporting mark GN), running from St. Paul, Minnesota to Seattle, Washington — more than 1,700 miles (2,736 km) — was the creation of the 19th century railroad tycoon James J. Hill and was developed from the St. Paul and Pacific Railroad. The Great Northern's route was the northernmost transcontinental railroad route in the United States and was north of the Northern Pacific Railway route. The Great Northern was a privately funded transcontinental railroad, though some of its predecessor roads received land grants. It was one of the few transcontinental railroads to avoid receivership following the Panic of 1893.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Northern_Railway_%28U.S.%29
Comment by joe Mostowey — October 7, 2009 @ 11:23 pm
@Betsy #84: "Perhaps no harm, Dan, but no NEED. Clearly all parents aren't reasonable."
I don't know if it's intentional, but you contradict yourself. If clearly all parents aren't reasonable, then clearly there is a NEED to protect some children from unreasonable parents. Thus the law - which doesn't impact reasonable parents in the least, but does protect the children of unreasonable parents from being put in unnecessary danger.
Thank YOU for your endorsement.
Comment by Dan Radmacher — October 7, 2009 @ 11:25 pm
Glen Franklin Koontz wrote Folks:The per student spending in Virginia exceeds $11k per year. Since Mr. Mostowey points out that the average private school tuition is $4.5k, it would hardly devastate public schools to let parents keep at least the average private school tuition in order to facilitate choice in education.
THANKS JOE!!!!!!!
--------------------------------------------------
Anytime, Glen. Because most parents of children in school pay less in taxes than the tuition for private schools.
And private schools onece the vouchers start to flow would have to add more space, hire more teachers and raise prices, Plus as most Public schools bus the children to school, mommy and daddy would have the added expense in time and money to transport the little snowflakes to the private schools until the private schools could create bus routes and buy more buses adding to their budget which means even higher tuition costs.
Comment by joe Mostowey — October 7, 2009 @ 11:30 pm
Dan Radmacher wrote "Actually, Mr. Mostowey was wrong"
That happens on occasion.
Comment by joe Mostowey — October 7, 2009 @ 11:33 pm
Dan Radmacher:
I do want to compare apples to apples, which means that I wish to include sectarian along with non-sectarian private schools. That brings the average private school tuition down considerably.
Or is the Left going to ban religious private schools?
Comment by Glen Franklin Koontz — October 8, 2009 @ 6:40 am
You know, for tuition to grow from 4500 dollars in 2003 to more than 13,000 dollars is a bit higher than inflation. I know people who make less than 13000 after taxes - and they work 40 hours.
Imagine having 14 children to send....
Or even 2.
Comment by joe Mostowey — October 8, 2009 @ 7:22 am
Perhaps after Obama talks abou... errrr... actually mandates free national healthcare, he will tackle giving everybody free higher education?? The man can do no wrong... if he does nothing, its because of the 'mess' Bush left... if he actually ever does anything, it will be a miracle because he overcame soooo much with the 'mess' that Bush left.
Comment by Marked Man (Mark) — October 8, 2009 @ 9:23 am
Well if education and health insurance and social security pensions are rights, why are food and housing not?
How about if we just give the government all our money, and let it take care of us? Is that not where we are headed? I mean really, the thought that health insurance is a right is so absurd as to be laughable!
Comment by Glen Franklin Koontz — October 8, 2009 @ 10:32 am
If health care is broken, then education is on life-support.
The state and federal govenrment spend more on education than health care, and yes, far more per capita than "any other industrialized nation". Yet somehow, to the left, while health care is rife with abuse, fraud, profiteering, and waste, there is no waste and overspending in education; we just need to spend more money.
To the left, of course, "fixing" something means government taking it over, and since government OWNS education, the left can't ever admit it's broken.
Comment by Suzie — October 8, 2009 @ 2:23 pm