A couple of years ago I read in the Seattle Times that the State of Washington spends about 45% of the budget on K-12 education. It spends about 11% on higher education. I don't know what percent of property tax goes to schools, but I imagine it's a lot.

Everyone knows that the government schools have failed. Spending has doubled in real dollars. Test scores are falling. They teach too many non-academic subjects; e.g. sex ed., death ed., recycling, diversity. They get caught up in fads; e.g. new math, whole-language reading. They cannot teach meaningful values because that would offend some section of the public. Parental authority is undermined. Prayer in school is not a problem when schools are private. Textbooks get watered down until they are meaningless, again because it might offend some group. There is no incentive to innovate; i.e. teaching methods have not changed, at least not for the better, since the invention of the grade school. Did I mention safety?

Then there is issue of fairness. A fair tax returns benefits to the taxpayers that pay it. The gas tax is fair because the more you use it the more you pay - as long as 100% of it goes back into roads. Is it fair to tax seniors and DINKS (dual income - no kids), to pay for someone else's progeny? Don't give me the hooey about paying for an educated society, because we're not getting that either.

So how about it, would you accept a 50% reduction in tax in return for being responsible for your own children's education?

-- Frank Hemingway (pvtc@aol.com), December 23, 1999

Answers

Here is another area where the politicians and bureaucrats JUST DON'T GET IT.

Public education at the K-12 level IS a disaster, and that to a greater extent than any other factor is driving families out of the major urban areas toward suburbs where the parents HOPE they can get their kids a decent education. We are seeing a huge growth in home schooling and anyone going to Costco can see that the textbook sales to the home schoolers are becoming big business. New computer teaching programs on the horizon will potentially make home schooling easier, while retaining the better academic performance that is really driving the whole movement.

I recent read that only 75% of children in Seattle are in the public schools. As these children attrit away, the social consensus that public schools are necessary for society is attriting away with them. If the politicians and the bureaucrats don't fix the problem, the day will come when they are flabbergasted to find out that the voters have voted down school funding in a major way. It will astound them as much as I-695 did. And if they continue down the present path, that WILL happen. Americans are not inherently pro big government, but they will vote to support government that works where they see it makes sense. Right now, the education system is broken, it doesn't make sense, and it's losing advocates. That's NO

-- (craigcar@crosswinds.net), December 23, 1999.

Sorry. Got cut-off. Final sentence was:

That's NOT the case right now.

-- (craigcar@crosswinds.net), December 23, 1999.

Would you educate your own children for a 50% reduction in tax?

Yes. In fact, so many people I know, who are concerned about their children's lack of education in public schools, spend so much of their time with their kids on school work, that you wonder what the heck the teacher does for six hours of the day, other than creating homework assignments.

In fact, after they learn to read, write and figure, I bet they could get the same amount of education online, in about 1 1/2 hours.

A 50% reduction in tax may be just enough of a break for one parent to stay home and home school.

1) Children would feel more valued. 2) Parents could control peer influence. 3) More supervision, less crime. 4) Stronger family ties. 5) Home schooling co-ops. Trade days of teaching different subjects with other parents, of your choosing. 6) Children would be safer. 7) Less distractions in the learning environment 8) No more being held hostage by teacher's unions.

I could go on for hours on the benefits of this idea.

-- Marsha (acorn_nut@hotmail.com), December 23, 1999.

Don't fool yourself... home-schooling is not the panacea its proponents present it to be. First and foremost, children who are home-schooled enter the "real world" with an unrealistic set of ideals. Second, they have not had the chance or ability to socialize with their peers (be they good, bad or ugly) and develop their own identity. Third, unless the home-schooled person is a self-made entrepeneur or scores in the top 95% of the SAT, college is rarely an option. That leaves them to fill the hundreds of service-oriented jobs, for which even a high school eduction is not needed or required.

Don't get me wrong, there are some obvious benefits to home-schooling (parental control, safety, quality, etc...). I just get tired of its supporters making it out like it is the absolute and only solution to the eduction problems in this state (and country). The true solution to the eduation problems in the coutry rest totally and squarely on the heads and shoulders of the parent(s). The Catholic schools have had the right idea for decades... a condition of enrollment is that each family is required to commit at least 35 hours of volunteer time to the school during the school year. This alone keeps the family involved in the school, the children aware that their parents CARE and the teachers/adminstrators on their toes (because there are always parents looking over their shoulders!).

Home schooling has its place for some people, but at the end of the day, PARENTAL INVOLVEMENT IN THE EDUCATION PROCESS is the best solution.

-- just a guy (torijosh@yahoo.com), December 23, 1999.

You are wasting your breath Marsha. Pubic education is the ONLY way that American children can learn anything. We just don't put enough money into it!! We must reduce the class size to three teachers per student!!

But wait I forgot!! When we spend more money on the schools it goes to administration!! Yes that's the answer 12 administrators for each teacher!!!

-- maddjak (maddjak@hotmail.com), December 23, 1999.

Sorry, but I did not post on this thread as I did the other.....2 options for the 50% tax reduction, private schools and home schooling. But as long as you bring it up...

Your statement "First and foremost, children who are home-schooled enter the "real world" with an unrealistic set of ideals" I don't believe this to be true at all. The same can be said for public education. When they move into the real world and have real jobs, many think mediocre work will get them by, just like in school.

Yor second point, they have not had the chance or ability to socialize with their peers (be they good, bad or ugly) and develop their own identity. Well that is plainly absurd. Peer pressure can have a detrimental effect on developing your own identity. Are we talking public school or private here? No exposure is better than bad exposure IMO.

Your third point, unless the home-schooled person is a self-made entrepeneur or scores in the top 95% of the SAT, college is rarely an option. To some extent is true. However, that is mainly from built in prejudices against home schooling, not due to the fact that the children aren't getting a quality education. Most who prepare for SAT's do quite well. And those in private school do even better, generally.

As for your comment, Home schooling has its place for some people, but at the end of the day, PARENTAL INVOLVEMENT IN THE EDUCATION PROCESS is the best solution. You are correct.....And it needs to be stated again. However, it becomes increasing difficult with so many parents having to both work. This tax break idea would give them a better option.

I still say, if you must spend 4 hours after school helping with homework, the first six hours spent in school were wasted. There is far more parents could be using the time for, in preparing the child for the outside world than pre-assigned homework.

-- Marsha (acorn_nut@hotmail.com), December 23, 1999.

"Don't fool yourself... home-schooling is not the panacea its proponents present it to be. First and foremost, children who are home-schooled enter the "real world" with an unrealistic set of ideals. Second, they have not had the chance or ability to socialize with their peers (be they good, bad or ugly) and develop their own identity. Third, unless the home-schooled person is a self-made entrepeneur or scores in the top 95% of the SAT, college is rarely an option. That leaves them to fill the hundreds of service-oriented jobs, for which even a high school eduction is not needed or required. "

Just a guy-

I don't follow this issue like I do transportation but anecdotes aside, the average home educated student does compare favorably with the average public school student. The population distributions overlap considerably, of course. And the socialization argument was the one I used to try to keep my youngest in High School rather than going to running start his junior year. He (and my two older children (both public school graduates)) managed to convince me that K-12 ain't the fun place it was for my generation. Until they fix it, he might as well get the college credits in Running Start, cause the socialization in K-12 seems to be not worth the hassle.

As I've said before, the voters aren't real fond of big government, but they'll accept being taxed to pay for government that works. Public education is ceasing to work, and losing popular support because of it.

-- (craigcar@crosswinds.net), December 23, 1999.

Craig and Marsha:

I agree with both of you, and would only add that a lot depends on the needs of each child. The public schools are required to take everyone, and the cost of special needs education drives up the average cost of education in many districts. Home schoolers can cover more material in less time, when the child has no special problems and the "class" does not need to slow down to the learning speed of the average learner in the "classroom". Private schools take the cream of the students, with parents who are interested in helping their children learn and the ability to help; and as a result their statistics will look better than the public schools anyway you want to evaluate education. "Running start" is a great program for students ready for some academic and social freedom.

I believe Craig is right, that the public schools are on the edge of a crisis of public support. The way to save them is to force them to be as outcome oriented as many parents are, about every single child they are responsible to teach. That requires some community support that does not involve money. In 8th grade my oldest daughter asked to go to a private school, and her reasons were simple. In public school, the expectations of teachers and students were that the students would not do their best, would not turn in work on time, and would not participate in class. Those that worked at getting everything done, were considered odd and criticized by other students for making them look bad. In private school the reverse was true. She could still learn in public school, but she would need to fight the pressure of opinion to do well.

Public schools need to change, and those teachers that try to change it will need a lot of support from parents that does not include money. Unfortunately, many parents believe the teacher is wrong to impose firm requirements and classroom behavior standards. Twenty or thirty years ago, students were afraid the teacher would send a note to a parent because of bad behavior in class . Now teachers are afraid of students, because of what the student could do to their career with accusations.

-- dbvz (dbvz@wa.freei.net), December 23, 1999.