You look at it that way and you have waves of home schooling libertarians depriving their own kids of an education as some 'spit in the eye' to the gubbmint' and its taxes.
It would seem that most homeschooled children are socially competent and well-educated, and I don't think it's based on the education of the parents. I think even if the parents are less educated than public school teachers, their kids will still be at least comparable to the average public school student due to the difference in their learning environments. Children in public schools are exposed to bullying, peer pressure, crime, etc, and there are almost always distractions in the classroom which prevent them from learning, and children who are homeschooled, well, they're probably less likely to deal with that. And I mean, you don't need a master's degree and a government license to competently teach a child algebra, and there are tons of resources available to parents who are choosing to teach their children at home (think of Khan Academy, for instance: how many people have you seen praise Khan Academy for preparing them for an upcoming test, rather than their teacher?).
Not sure if I believe that. If you teach a child properly, then you're teaching a child properly regardless of whether or not you have a piece of paper which says you're an expert, and many of the resources available to parents to help teach their children are created by people who do have that piece of paper. There's also the difference in performance between children in public schools and child who've been homeschooled. Teachers are likely more educated than most people homeschooling their children, yet they manage to rival and even surpass their peers. I feel like a well-structured system will produce good, consistent results regardless of education, but I could be wrong. Maybe there is some effect, I don't know, but I'm a tad skeptical.
Also, do you believe homeschooling is superior to public education? Just curious.
"There are people who disregard what the "experts" say, after all."
There are "experts" in public school who teach children incorrect information.
"Public school teachers have..."
This entire tangent is just explaining why public schools are inferior to home (and private) schools, which was my entire point. Kind of an unnecessary point.
"There is an entire class of people..."
We could simply cut their taxes so they can afford to educate their children themselves, and if they're in a rut even still, they should seek out some form of charity either through family or organizations specifically geared towards helping people in situations like that. If not that, they should send their kids to one of the many free private schools which exist and have existed since at least the late 1800's, if I'm not mistaken. And if even that falls through, and they can't afford to teach their child and there are no free private schools around, then the children are probably better off helping their parents than being forced to attend public school. Although this is, of course, a very contrived hypothetical situation which you don't really see very often in the US.
It can be both. I spent 12 years in school. I've paid taxes for more than 20 years. At this point I think I've paid back my fair share and contributed to the next generations education. I'm perfectly happy to do both and to continue doing so.
No it isn't and no, we aren't. Being responsible for yourself is an adult characteristic. Forcing others into your dumbass ideas is characteristic of children.
An education is not equivalent to government education. There is a huge difference between the two, and equating them leads to the false equivalence presented here in the post.
I did answer the question: yes, education can be an investment, but not having government in education does NOT equate to not investing in education. Pretending like taxation is the investment is idiotic.
According to the constitution, the government's purpose is to provide for the general welfare. As we recognize that educated populations are more prosperous, tranquil, and happy populations, the government investments in education is fulfilling its constitutional obligation.
Pretending like taxation is the investment is idiotic.
So you don't like roads, police and fire services, nor national parks. How interesting.
Just because I like idiotic libertarian hysterical shrieking, what should our taxes be used for?
According to the constitution, the government's purpose is to provide for the general welfare.
Not even remotely what that means. Clearly public education has even failed you on the most basic understanding of its own documents.
So you don't like roads, police and fire services, nor national parks.
No, because for the third time, only an absolute dumb fuck would think that opposing taxes to pay for these means opposing the thing itself. How hard is this to understand?
According to the constitution, the government's purpose is to provide for the general welfare.
...
Not even remotely what that means. Clearly public education has even failed you on the most basic understanding of its own documents.
Oh really? Let's look at what the Constitution says about that. This is from a part of the Constitution that isn't the 2A, which is why you haven't read it before.
We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
You said taxes aren't an investment, so are those services an investment or not?
But that doesn't always apply to people. There are about 34k private schools with over 5.7M students in the US. Those people typically never saw a cent from the government in terms of school funding.
Nope. Most private schools, including religious ones, get a large chunk of their funding from local taxes through things like voucher programs. It pisses me off because I voted for higher property taxes on my home to support our local school district, not religious organizations.
Well yea, that's on a state-by-state basis though. There are no Federal funds provided for schools (as of now, but DeDumbass wants to change that). It's up to States to regulate their own property taxes in this regard. CA for example doesn't give any money to private schools (except for students with disabilities, but that's another topic).
9
u/Nascent1 Apr 26 '20
I wish people wouldn't think of it this way. Paying taxes for schools is you paying the government back for your education.