Is this why everyone thinks America is stupid?

[Inspector]

But that "ought" is a liability of those who were supposed to educate her.

Of course. That's my entire point.

Although I will point out that even given said education system, all of my friends at that age could have given the answer that the education system is broken - that it teaches too much "self esteem" and too few facts. She is definitely in the broad category of "stupid people."

As to Europe v. America, if you check my earlier posts, I'm on your side on that one. It is not necessary to excuse her ignorance in order to defend America. If you think that's ignorant, you've never read knowledge surveys from France. Quite a number of Frenchmen believe the sun revolves around the earth...

Also, I've never implied she was attractive. Again, check my earlier posts.

Edited September 5, 2007 by Inspector

[DavidOdden]

FYI, I'm not British.

Surely you can learn. You could claim you're Welsh.

[~Sophia~]

If no one teaches a newborn, she will be ignorant. It's not her fault that her teachers haven't been doing their jobs, or worse, that they have been sabotaging her intellectual growth.

Ultimately who is responsible for raising a child to become a self sustainable adult? It is a parent and education is a crucial component of this process. Parents have an option of educating their children themselves or alternatively they can delegate that role to another party and pay for that service. If they find that the service available to them, which they accepted, is not sufficient for what the child needs - it is THEIR responsibility to pick up the slack and supplement their child's education to make sure their kid receives the level of education necessary (again there are options available here). It IS NOT (and should not be -as we all believe here) the state's responsibility to educate anyone. The state is providing a sub par service it has no business providing in a first place.

It is therefore the parents fault if their children are not educated properly. It is the mentality that the state is going to take care of things for them, things which are their responsibility, which is the problem here.

Edited September 6, 2007 by ~Sophia~

[gags]

FYI, I'm not British.Surely you can learn. You could claim you're Welsh.

He could also stop brushing his teeth.

[Capitalism Forever]

Of course. That's my entire point.

Although I will point out that even given said education system, all of my friends at that age could have given the answer that the education system is broken - that it teaches too much "self esteem" and too few facts. She is definitely in the broad category of "stupid people."

As to Europe v. America, if you check my earlier posts, I'm on your side on that one. It is not necessary to excuse her ignorance in order to defend America. If you think that's ignorant, you've never read knowledge surveys from France. Quite a number of Frenchmen believe the sun revolves around the earth...

Also, I've never implied she was attractive. Again, check my earlier posts.

OK, it seems we're pretty much in agreement then. As usually!

[Capitalism Forever]

It IS NOT (and should not be -as we all believe here) the state's responsibility to educate anyone. The state is providing a sub par service it has no business providing in a first place.

Absolutely true. Note, though, that parents are still paying for that service, via taxation. By forcing them to pay for the sub-par service it provides, even if they're not going to use it, the state makes many people unable to afford any better alternative.

[Capitalism Forever]

European might actually work better . And the hint of acquired Ox-Bridge would probably make it extra-exotic!

FYI, I'm not British.Surely you can learn. You could claim you're Welsh.

Just today at work, I was explaining to a guy that the application I'm writing was now placing autodealt orders. Not understanding, he asked "What orders?" I said, with the same pronunciation, "Autodealt." (He uses that term frequently himself, so the reason he didn't understand it clearly didn't have to do with his lack of familiarity.) Since he still didn't understand, I tried it this way: "Automatically dealt orders." (We never normally say that.) His face brightened up: "Ah, I see, oh-tomatically dealt orders!"

I'm able to pronounce the word the British way, but I'm not going to. I'm American!

[~Sophia~]

Absolutely true. Note, though, that parents are still paying for that service, via taxation. By forcing them to pay for the sub-par service it provides, even if they're not going to use it, the state makes many people unable to afford any better alternative.

Estimated receipts for fiscal year 2006 are $2.2 trillion. This expected income is broken down by the following sources:

• $966.9 billion (44.4%) - Individual income tax
  
• $818.8 billion (37.6%) - Social Security and other payroll taxes
  
• $220.3 billion (10.1%) - Corporate income tax
  
• $75.6 billion (3.5%) - Excise taxes
  
• $26.1 billion (1.2%) - Estate and gift taxes
  
• $28.3 billion (1.3%) - Customs duties
  
• $41.6 billion (1.9%) - Other
  

Spending:

The President's budget for 2006 totals $2.6 trillion. This budget request is broken down by the following expenditures:

• $544.8 billion (20.90%) - Social Security
  
• $512.1 billion (18.00%) - Defense
  
• $359.5 billion (13.79%) - Unemployment and welfare
  
• $345.7 billion (13.26%) - Medicare
  
• $268.4 billion (10.30%) - Medicaid and other health related
  
• $211.1 billion (8.10%) - Interest on debt
  
• $88.7 billion (3.40%) - Education and training
  
• $70.7 billion (2.71%) - Transportation
  
• $68.4 billion (2.62%) - Veterans' benefits
  
• $43.1 billion (1.65%) - Administration of justice
  
• $38.4 billion (1.47%) - Foreign affairs
  
• $31.2 billion (1.20%) - Natural resources and environment
  
• $26.0 billion (1.00%) - Agriculture
  
• $24.0 billion (0.92%) - Science and technology
  
• $19.1 billion (0.73%) - Community and regional development
  
• $17.8 billion (0.68%) - General government
  
• $2.1 billion (0.08%) - Energy
  

So lets make a very rough calculation.

Education is about 3.5% of the total government spending (or 88.7 billion). Money collected from income tax are roughly half of the budget so I will divide that number by two. Education cost component is now 88.7 billion/2 = 44.35 billion which is 4.6 % of total money collected from income tax.

So for each $10,000 paid in taxes per year - if there was no public education system a person would have saved $460.0 dollars. From what I know (again roughly) the actual cost of Grade 1-8 is about $900.0 per month (I maybe little off here). Sure one would like public education to be of much better quality but considering how much a parent actually contributes to its cost - it is still a bargain I think.

Yes overall taxation makes things much more difficult but even if the child must go to a public school - a parent can stil do a lot. One can move to a better area (it may mean a smaller house or appartment - but you know what - you chose to have a kid - it has its price), there are many educational resources on the web, one can hire tutors, VanDamme Academy offers online courses ect.

To me, there is no excuse.

Edited September 6, 2007 by ~Sophia~

[K-Mac]

To me, there is no excuse.

It appears that you're only taking federal taxes into account when most school funding is done by property taxes, at least they were in Texas. And property taxes are out of control in Texas.

[~Sophia~]

It appears that you're only taking federal taxes into account when most school funding is done by property taxes, at least they were in Texas. And property taxes are out of control in Texas.

I used it because it makes things easier for a rough estimate. Not everybody owns a property (would this be a part of estate taxes listed above? If so that would add 1.2% and I used a figure for personal income tax (as a fraction of total income) of 50% not 44.4% - so you could say that I accounted for that) but everyone pays income tax. If a parent is not a property owner - the % of what he actually contributes to education is probably much smaller than what I have calculated above.

The cost of public education to the whole system is the same - it is still 3.4% of total budget.

Edited September 6, 2007 by ~Sophia~

[Inspector]

OK, it seems we're pretty much in agreement then. As usually!

<taps nose>

[softwareNerd]

Sophia,

I agree that parents cannot make excuses. The public education system makes it harder to educate one's kids. However, that's part of the context parents must consider when having kids, and it is definitely not an insurmountable hurdle to ensuring that one's kids turn out okay. Parents simply have to work much harder at it, when the schools aren't doing their part.

Public education costs about $8000 per kid per year (around $5000 in some states, and about $10,000 in others). Doing away with public education would put that money back in the hands of tax-payers. The reason most people won't see $8,000 more is that the rich pay disproportionately more tax.

K-Mac's point about Federal funding is that, in the U.S., the K-12 schools are funded primarily by state-tax and local-tax. So, the $88 billion Federal money above is only one part of the funding. For instance, in my school district, about 10% of the funding comes out of the $88 billion. The rest comes from various state-taxes.

[K-Mac]

Not everybody owns a property...

Well, even if you pay rent or buy products, etc., you are helping to pay someone's property taxes. Taxes are built into everything you spend money on. I don't have the exact numbers with me, but Americans lose about 47%, if I'm not mistaken, of every dollar they earn/spend to taxes.

I found this at http://www.lbb.state.tx.us/Fact_Book/Texas...k_2006_0106.pdf , page 49 (48 of 94) and the numbers are in millions. The table didn't cut and paste well, but it's a government agency, what do you expect?

1 Texas Education Agency $33,596.5

2 Health and Human Services Commission 29,586.5

3 Department of Transportation 15,162.1

4 Department of Aging and Disability Services 10,232.7

5 Department of Criminal Justice 5,063.5

6 Department of State Health Services 4,750.4

7 Teacher Retirement System 3,449.8

8 Employees Retirement System 2,792.6

9 Texas Workforce Commission 2,142.5

10 Department of Protective and Family Services 2,092.4

11 Commission on Environmental Quality 971.2

12 Department of Assistive and Rehabilitative Services 953.5

13 Office of the Attorney General 933.2

14 Department of Public Safety 909.9

15 Trusteed Programs within the Office of the Governor 668.7

Anyway, my point is, if you want to live without any creature comforts, just about anyone could afford private school. But for those of us who prefer to live w/ some modern amenities, it's out of reach. Yet another reason I have not yet had children. (And may never.)

I also agree with softwareNerd that people shouldn't have kids if they aren't going to pick up where public schools are leaving off. Unfortunately, many decent folks have been duped into thinking their suburban schools are "good." It's even a selling point for homes in the district I was raised in..."Great Klein ISD Schools!" What a joke!

Edited September 6, 2007 by K-Mac

[~Sophia~]

So, the $88 billion Federal money above is only one part of the funding. For instance, in my school district, about 10% of the funding comes out of the $88 billion. The rest comes from various state-taxes.

I see. But I still think that parents do not contribute $8K per kid per year toward education from the total of the taxes they pay. Like you mentioned, rich pay considerably more, also not everyone has children or children in school yet everybody contributes.

Edited September 6, 2007 by ~Sophia~

[~Sophia~]

Anyway, my point is, if you want to live without any creature comforts, just about anyone could afford private school. But for those of us who prefer to live w/ some modern amenities, it's out of reach.

I don't find that true at all. I am a single mother (lower middle class income + some child support) and I found a way to afford a private school for my son. If I can do it anybody can. It would have been much easier living on two incomes.

And there is another thing - eventhough generally private schools are often better than public - they are still far away from the quality of education offered at VanDamme Academy (not to mention the influences of altruism, multiculturalism, environmentalism). So I stil feel that I have to do my homework (my part) with my son - probably only slightly less than a parent whose child is attending a public school.

I also agree with softwareNerd that people shouldn't have kids if they aren't going to pick up where public schools are leaving off.

True.

[~Sophia~]

A recent publication by the United States Department of Education has admitted that the average cost of public education per pupil is slightly more than double the cost per pupil of a private education, even though public schools have more students per teacher.

From Cato institute website:

"The average tuition for all private schools, elementary and secondary, is $3,116 (1993-1994 - so adjust for inflation - I pay $4,900 for my son's school - grade 1 - it will be little more in higher grades), or less than half of the cost per pupil in the average public school, $6,857."

Edited September 6, 2007 by ~Sophia~

[aequalsa]

I used it because it makes things easier for a rough estimate. Not everybody owns a property (would this be a part of estate taxes listed above? If so that would add 1.2% and I used a figure for personal income tax (as a fraction of total income) of 50% not 44.4% - so you could say that I accounted for that) but everyone pays income tax. If a parent is not a property owner - the % of what he actually contributes to education is probably much smaller than what I have calculated above.

The cost of public education to the whole system is the same - it is still 3.4% of total budget.

I do not think your estimate is close to accurate. State and local governments take about the same amount as the federal government and pay for a significant portion of that cost out of property and other taxes. And even without owning property, renters pay it through higher rent and lower wages that result from their employers tax burden. And even if they aren't paying it in terms of percentages, to be fair you would need to calculate all of the government they pay for and never use.

Further is the incalculable opportunity cost. How much more cheap and efficient could a free market of schools eventually be? To say nothing of the quality. How much do you lose, not just yearly but in compounding interest when they steal the oh so more important time value of your discretionary income? (for an interesting thought on that, try calculating the 15% they steal for SS if it were invested at 10% return for 50 years as compared to what your likely to collect-it'll blow your mind) What they take is far less important then when they take it.

As to whether or not its a bargain, it wouldn't be even if they payed A million bucks per kid and charge me $1.50. How could the wholesale destruction of minds be a bargain at any price? Based on the several public schools I went to, I would have been better off neurologically with a library card and my 12 years back.

[Steve D'Ippolito]

A recent publication by the United States Department of Education has admitted that the average cost of public education per pupil is slightly more than double the cost per pupil of a private education, even though public schools have more students per teacher.

Tons of straphanging bureaucrats!

One district here caught loads of media abuse because it turned out less than half of their employees actually *taught*. There was an insurgent faction running for the school board, and a few even got elected, but they were eventually recalled. Teachers unions of course dominate these elections because they happen in April when most people aren't thinking "gee, it's time for an election."

[~Sophia~]

I do not think your estimate is close to accurate. State and local governments take about the same amount as the federal government and pay for a significant portion of that cost out of property and other taxes.

I looked into it. In California, for example, state tax revenues (both income and business) pay roughly 60% of the cost, federal funding accounts for about 10%, 20% comes from property taxes, the rest from other sources (including lotteries).

If you tripple the amount I calculated (cost to the parent) still does not come close to $8K/year (like I said many don't have children yet still pay and wealthy cover a much bigger chunk).

to be fair you would need to calculate all of the government they pay for and never use.

I was only looking into what would happen if there was no public education with everything else left the same. I was interested in that single component.

How much more cheap and efficient could a free market of schools eventually be?

Very good point. I am certainly not for public education system.

How could the wholesale destruction of minds be a bargain at any price?

I hold a view that given appropriate parental guidance (which includes rational philosophy) one can turn out quiet well educated even in the current public system. I strongly believe that the majority of the blame belongs to the parents.

Based on the several public schools I went to, I would have been better off neurologically with a library card and my 12 years back.

Can't be that bad. Seems like you turned out better than most

[aequalsa]

Can't be that bad. Seems like you turned out better than most

While I appreciate the compliment It can be that bad. My entire knowledge base is in spite of school and not because of it. If I had it to do over again I'd drop out in kindergarten. Wouldn't have spent a minute there, let alone 7 hours a day for 12 years. Not that they can be properly separated, but I am more resentful of that waste of time then I am of paying taxes.