Add a Comment
Email This
IF the parents have a child (or children) who cannot for medical or other reasons attend public schools, then that parents school/property tax burden (related to schools) should be either partially refunded or reduced.
Except that public school taxes aren't apportioned based on the number of children you have attending school. People with no children at all, and people whose children are long past school age still end up paying those taxes.
I'm not opposed to the voucher idea - I think it's a good idea for other reasons - but the logic can't be "my kid doesn't go to public school, so I should get to use that money for the school of my choice". If so, then I don't even have kids, so I should have to pay for schools at all.
My original argument was that there's not enough benefit to outweigh the costs of an allergen-free school. But the existence of schools does have a tangible benefit that we all share. Democracy relies on a reasonably well-educated electorate. You don't pay school taxes so that your kids benefit by going to school - that's really a side effect. You pay them so that everybody gets educated enough for you to live in a free society.
Vouchers are more about apportioning the tax money collected - not about shifting the burden around. The point of the voucher system is to put the forces of capitalism to work to ensure the school systems are high quality.
Except that public school taxes aren't apportioned based on the number of children you have attending school. People with no children at all, and people whose children are long past school age still end up paying those taxes.
True, but I'm sure *some* formula could be arrived at based on the total number of children in school and the total school taxes collected for that particular district--at least for those parents who, for medical reasons, need to educate their child(ren) at home or elsewhere. The Private/Christian school attendees can get assistance in the form of scholarships so they're not as badly affected. I still think there should be something done for the home schoolers--but in many communities you can draw upon the schools for assistance with home schooling, and everywhere they are allowed to participate in extracurricular activities--even attend graduations. I don't feel as strongly about the home schoolers or those going to non-Public schools as I do about those with medical reasons for segregation.
Many states are also trying to find creative ways to reduce or eliminate school/property taxes for just those people who are childless for whatever reason. Personally, I don't think it's possible, given the education costs. I have no children living at home--they're with their mother in a different town. However, I still feel responsible enough to society as a whole that I won't grouch about paying taxes for the house I just bought.
My original argument was that there's not enough benefit to outweigh the costs of an allergen-free school.
Absolutely! not only that, but the district has no way of making an 'allergen free' school. In many districts it would be virtually impossible--like Hershey PA or Stuarts Draft, VA. What if your parent(s) worked at the Reeses Plant in those towns? Peanut oil/butter is EVERYWHERE in the plant, you can't escape it. It would be on clothes, in the car, at home. If merely coming into contact with a microscopic trace of peanut oil is enough to cause anaphylactic shock in some patients, then there is no way that you can guarantee an allergen free school. It also opens the whole allergy issue up--Dust, Pollen, milk--the list is essentially endless.
But the existence of schools does have a tangible benefit that we all share. Democracy relies on a reasonably well-educated electorate. You don't pay school taxes so that your kids benefit by going to school - that's really a side effect. You pay them so that everybody gets educated enough for you to live in a free society.
You won't get any argument from me--but the hard part is determining where education ends and 'extras' begin. I have my own ideas, but suffice to say that if a district has to sell candy/pizza/whatever to buy educational equipment or books, they're not spending the money right to begin with. We the voters need to be responsible enough to require an accounting, and require our elected boards to cut the extraneous expenses.
RSS
RE: Um, that's not evolution
It seems like a better solution to simply require the parents to bear the costs directly. If the kids are only mildly allergic, they can probably go to school. If they're extremely allergic, that may not be practical - any more than it's practical for public schools to address the needs of deaf or blind children. The idea that the school could (or even should) remove all possible allergens from the environment is ridiculous.
Sensible solution--but I'd suggest that we go one step further. IF the parents have a child (or children) who cannot for medical or other reasons attend public schools, then that parents school/property tax burden (related to schools) should be either partially refunded or reduced.
It's sort of like the 'voucher' program that keeps coming up. If I, as a parent, do not send my child to public school for whatever the reason, then I should be allowed to keep a portion of what I pay in school taxes. I realize that the taxes I pay are spread across the wider spectrum of X number of children in school--and that it's not a direct relationship to the tax dollars collected from each property owner. Ergo while I support a 'vourcher system'; I do not support a 100% refund either. As to apartment dwellers, maybe they get it in the form of a local tax refund, proportional to the amount of their rent that is used to pay property taxes on the building they inhabit. Home school material varies in price--and there are free resources as well. Some 'Home School' programs are taxpayer funded as well, usually through Title I, but some of the local dollars are used too. In the case of private/Christian schools, many of them usually have ways for people without the full tuition coast to let their children attend.
It only seems fair to me that those parents who do not have children in public school, should not bear the full burden of paying for school IF they have children of their own who are not attending. Beyond that, everyone should pay their fair share. Monies to pay for alternative schooling programs must come from somewhere, and it shouldn't by paid the parents of those children in those programs entirely; their tax burden should be lowered to help them. Whether this is done via refund/rebate/tax deduction at the local level is not material; I do not know which is best or most easily administered; though I suspect a tax 'deduction' is the easiest. Still, the monies need to come from somewhere.
View Full Discussion