A Right to Education?

[chabouk]

Here's the test of "right" versus "entitlement": if it creates a negative obligation (that is, others are forbidden from doing something to you), it is a right. If it creates a positive obligation (others are required to do something for you), it is not a right, it is an entitlement.

That's why taxpayer funded health care, education, housing, groceries, etc., etc., are not "rights".

[marksiwel]

Okay "Right" wasnt the RIGHT word.

Do you think the government has the DUTY to give a Basic Education to children 18 and under

[Keith B]

Okay "Right" wasnt the RIGHT word.

Do you think the government has the DUTY to give a Basic Education to children 18 and under

I feel they have more of an 'obligation' to provide an opportunity for a child to get a good education. I feel the parents are obligated to make sure the child also gets that education. Unfortunately there are many parents that don't feel obligated to raise their children properly, period. And the education system has been so watered down that they don't seem obligated to make sure the system will ensure the child gets a good education.

Edited to add: And I think Duty and Obligation are kinda synonymous, so yes to answer your question.

[The Annoyed Man]

I believe that an educated society is a free society. I also believe that each individual has a sort of moral obligation to do what they can to preserve freedom. At the very least, they should not stand in the way of it. So putting freedom and moral obligation together, then I would say that a free society has a moral obligation to promote education as a core value, and an equal obligation to not get in the way of an individual's ambition to obtain an education.

But how that opportunity is implemented should be dependent upon the standards and desires of the community in which you live. The guarantee of an education is not a right as defined by the Constitution, but the freedom to pursue one may well be. If a community decides by the majority of its voters that it will provide a public education, then I see nothing wrong with that. However, if another community decides deliberately not to do so because they have some other provision for educating the children of their community, then I would say that the state should not have the right to impose an educational standard on them. But if a community neither votes to provide an education to its children, nor does it have some other educational alternative in place, then I would say that community is shirking its moral responsibility to general preservation of freedom.

[Charles L. Cotton]

100 years ago when I was in law school, there was a U.S. Supreme Court decision that held there is no constitutional right to be provided an education. However, if a state chooses to provide public education, then it must do so without discrimination. (I'm not talking about Brown v. Board of Education.)

The problem I see is the State mandating a public school system that is successful in suburban areas, but an abject failure in major cities. Overall I view public school systems as a failure in that we are graduating kids who cannot read and write on a 12th grade level and who have virtually no math skills. Our goal seems to be maintaining a public school system (whether or not it works), not educating our children.

What's my answer? Privatize and let competition in terms of cost and quality generate a system that works. It would have to be tax supported, or education would not be available to low income families.

Chas.

[Kythas]

100 years ago when I was in law school, there was a U.S. Supreme Court decision that held there is no constitutional right to be provided an education. However, if a state chooses to provide public education, then it must do so without discrimination. (I'm not talking about Brown v. Board of Education.)

The problem I see is the State mandating a public school system that is successful in suburban areas, but an abject failure in major cities. Overall I view public school systems as a failure in that we are graduating kids who cannot read and write on a 12th grade level and who have virtually no math skills. Our goal seems to be maintaining a public school system (whether or not it works), not educating our children.

What's my answer? Privatize and let competition in terms of cost and quality generate a system that works. It would have to be tax supported, or education would not be available to low income families.

Chas.

This is exactly why I support school vouchers. I don't know why the liberals, for the most part, don't support this...ok, yes I do. It takes away from maintaining their monopoly on public education and indoctrinating the masses with what they want to teach.

I find it very telling that the same politicians in Washington DC who keep voting down school vouchers by saying we have excellent public education then turn around and send their children to private schools.

[mr.72]

This is exactly why I support school vouchers. I don't know why the liberals, for the most part, don't support this...ok, yes I do. It takes away from maintaining their monopoly on public education and indoctrinating the masses with what they want to teach.

I find it very telling that the same politicians in Washington DC who keep voting down school vouchers by saying we have excellent public education then turn around and send their children to private schools.

School vouchers are better than nothing, but they should be not some token amount that has been bandied about but the actual to-the-penny amount that is spent in whichever district per student. So if my district spends $9,943.27 per student, then the voucher needs to be exactly that amount .

But better yet would be to charge tuition for public schools and not tax us for school to begin with. Let the gov't provide scholarships, grants and loans to parents who cannot afford to pay for school for their kids, or allow private organizations to provide grants and scholarships. Of course, it would reveal just how overpriced our public schools are and given a choice like this only a fool would choose to spend more to send their kids to public school rather than private school. Without taking our money by force to provide public school, there would be no public school.

[txmatt]

This is exactly why I support school vouchers. I don't know why the liberals, for the most part, don't support this...ok, yes I do. It takes away from maintaining their monopoly on public education and indoctrinating the masses with what they want to teach.

I find it very telling that the same politicians in Washington DC who keep voting down school vouchers by saying we have excellent public education then turn around and send their children to private schools.

I have a big problem with vouchers. If you decide to put your kid in some wacky private school that is inferior to public schools (yes, they do exist) or want to use it for religious indoctrination, I should NOT have to pay for it. If I am going to be taxed to pay for other people's education I should at least get some say through the democratic process as to what is taught and how scholastic performance is measured. Don't like that? Then don't make me pay for it.

Vouchers make about as much sense as the healthcare bill that started this discussion about rights.

[mr.72]

I have a big problem with vouchers. If you decide to put your kid in some wacky private school that is inferior to public schools (yes, they do exist) or want to use it for religious indoctrination, I should NOT have to pay for it. If I am going to be taxed to pay for other people's education I should at least get some say through the democratic process as to what is taught and how scholastic performance is measured. Don't like that? Then don't make me pay for it.

Vouchers make about as much sense as the healthcare bill that started this discussion about rights.

Your problem is totally misguided, as far as I can tell. The "I should NOT have to pay for it" is the operative phase. You should not have to pay for it, NO MATTER WHAT. The problem is that you DO have to pay for it, and SO DO I even if I am not a consumer of it.

So I could just as easily say, I don't want to pay for it if it is NOT different from your standard of scholastic performance or if it does NOT indoctrinate some religion. Since you say "democratic", well as long as I can get a majority to agree with me then you can be sure you will be made to pay for it. You don't currently have any say, although you can have an opinion. Maybe your opinion coincides with the opinions of the state education people such that you feel like you are getting what you are paying for. But my opinion deviates from that of the state, so should I have to pay for it?

The way to make it fair is that nobody pays for it unless they choose to use it.

Again, this is about freedom. I think most Americans don't really believe in freedom. They want freedoms like being able to drink, smoke pot or marry someone of the same gender but they don't want others to have freedom to choose not to subsidize inferior public education with their money. Americans don't want freedom, they want the illusion of freedom. Money is power. No freedom to do what we please with our money means we really don't have any freedom where there is any power.

This deviates from "a right to education", but that question is irrelevant. You don't have a right to use my money for your education. But the state compels me to allow it.

[marksiwel]

I dont want to pay for it, you WILL pay for it when large portions of the poor wander the streets jobless. You will pay for it when the economy starts tanking. You will pay for it when you retire and the only person they can find to change your IV bag and empty your bed pans is illiterate at best and holds YOUR Life in THIER hands.

Educating Children helps everyone.
As for Freedom
Merium-Webster
"Freedom"
a : the absence of necessity, coercion, or constraint in choice or action

We havent been free in awhile then

[Dudley]

If the taxpayers are going to pay for school, either through public schools or vouchers, the taxpayers have a moral right to demand they're getting good value for their money.

There are also ethical concerns about making a Jew pay taxes to support a school that denies the Holocaust or says Israel has no right to exist.

[surprise_i'm_armed]

If the taxpayers are going to pay for school, either through public schools or vouchers, the taxpayers have a moral right to demand they're getting good value for their money.

There are also ethical concerns about making a Jew pay taxes to support a school that denies the Holocaust or says Israel has no right to exist.

That school would exist today in Iran. I know of no US public school that would
promote that mis-information, followed by warlike intent against Israel.

Are you aware of such a US school?

SIA

[txmatt]

Your problem is totally misguided, as far as I can tell. The "I should NOT have to pay for it" is the operative phase. You should not have to pay for it, NO MATTER WHAT.

Of course I shouldn't but since I do...

The problem is that you DO have to pay for it, and SO DO I even if I am not a consumer of it.

So I could just as easily say, I don't want to pay for it if it is NOT different from your standard of scholastic performance or if it does NOT indoctrinate some religion. Since you say "democratic", well as long as I can get a majority to agree with me then you can be sure you will be made to pay for it.

Yes, that is in fact how democracy works. If you get a majority to agree with what you want taught then that is what is taught. But we get to participate in the process, regardless of whether we get the outcome we want. I have a real problem with how most of public school is conducted, and I believe it is a huge waste of money. But the only redeeming feature is that I get for my money a vote on school board members, state legislators etc. It's not much of a redeeming feature, but vouchers do away with even that little tidbit of reasonableness

You don't currently have any say, although you can have an opinion.

No, see above. We elect school board members do we not? We elect our state legislators. I don't get fiat power over the curriculum, unfortunately though.

Maybe your opinion coincides with the opinions of the state education people such that you feel like you are getting what you are paying for. But my opinion deviates from that of the state, so should I have to pay for it?

To the same extent that I do, yes.

The way to make it fair is that nobody pays for it unless they choose to use it.

Yes, that is how to make it more fair, and the way to make it less fair is to have vouchers. See my point?

Again, this is about freedom. I think most Americans don't really believe in freedom. They want freedoms like being able to drink, smoke pot or marry someone of the same gender but they don't want others to have freedom to choose not to subsidize inferior public education with their money. Americans don't want freedom, they want the illusion of freedom. Money is power. No freedom to do what we please with our money means we really don't have any freedom where there is any power.

This deviates from "a right to education", but that question is irrelevant. You don't have a right to use my money for your education. But the state compels me to allow it.

Yep.


And to those that keep bringing up how important education is, I don't think anyone here is disagreeing with that. Around these parts we spend over $8,000 per pupil per year. And the education they get is very much subpar as far as I can tell. It's the lack of a real education that upsets me, and then having to pay for this lack of education. I really think parents would push their kids harder to make the most out of school if they were paying for it.

[mr.72]

And to those that keep bringing up how important education is, I don't think anyone here is disagreeing with that. Around these parts we spend over $8,000 per pupil per year. And the education they get is very much subpar as far as I can tell. It's the lack of a real education that upsets me, and then having to pay for this lack of education. I really think parents would push their kids harder to make the most out of school if they were paying for it.

Here's the problem, TXMatt.

Parents are paying for it. All of them are. Well, all of them who are not homeless in Texas are in fact paying for it, either directly through property taxes on property they own, or indirectly through rent for property owned by someone else who has to pay those property taxes. But the majority of people either don't understand that they are paying for it, or they don't care. The homeowner with no children and a half-million dollar house who is a couple of years from retirement could care less about that property tax bill. It's the least of this guy's worries. And the single mom with four kids renting a one-bedroom apartment for $600/months and working two jobs to try and make ends meet cannot possibly be expected to understand that part of her rent is paying the property taxes which provide the inferior school her children attend, any more than she can be expected to have any idea what the kids are doing or being taught anyway because she is never at home. If she understood economics enough to get this, then she would not have had four kids she can't afford to raise.

The problem is that you say that some noble "democratic process" is in force with respect to public schools in Texas. But one of two things has to be true in that case. Either there is really no functional democratic process in effect, or the majority of voters prefer the inferior, overpriced public schools we have now. You cannot suggest that there is this pie-in-the-sky democratic process whereby the wisdom of the collective drives public education such that it magically meets the needs of all people, and then also say that the piece of junk school system we have now is the result of such a benevolent system.

So you have to conclude either that people prefer this junk, or that the system is indeed not in effect as you see it. I leave it to you to decide which is true. Either you have no faith in your fellow man, in which case I suggest you do not support a democratic system, or you have no faith in politicians to carry forth the will of the people, in which case you still can't reasonably support a democratic system. In either case, the flaw in the system is the very concept of a democratic system actually working. Democracy doesn't work much better than socialism. That's why this country was not founded as a Democracy.

So since I can't trust the system, either because all of the voters are idiots or because the elected do not represent my interests, then I demand to be able to make choices on my own without the government interfering. That would be freedom.

Vouchers are not the right way to solve this problem, but they are the only politically-viable way to get closer to a solution available at this time.

And FWIW, it doesn't really affect me, or you, or any other individual, if we don't educate everyone else. Except if we are then forced to feed them, or to clothe and house them, or to otherwise bail them out of their poor choice of not acquiring their own education. See, the seed of socialism evolves from Democracy that decides that we are providing something, anything, "for the common good"... it rapidly follows, "to each according to his need", and then you know the rest. Of course if we assume socialism, and then remove public education from our near-socialism at hand, then it is clearly defective. But again, the defect is socialism or near-socialism, and not freedom. Freedom is the solution, not the problem. Introducing freedom into our system reveals the sad state that we have allowed it to achieve.

[marksiwel]

we really need to get rid of the Property Tax way of getting schools funded.
You can see the differences Carrolington Schools and Coppell Schools and they are right next to each other. Its a disgrace that kids are being left out of so many opportunities because they live in the wrong zip codes.