Home-schooled girl fights for band spot

[ChrisR246]

Steve Andersen:

Isn’t that what I said?

No, what you said was

Schools are funded by the number of enrolled students…this family basically wants to steal from everyone else and use the Constitution as a cover

The number of enrolled students has nothing to do with the funding, just the distribution. A family that homeschools or uses private schools contributes just as much to the funding, it’s just that the local school district sees a little less of that portion that comes from the Fed based on enrollment.

Because an educated population is in general better than an non-educated one

I would rephrase that to “a population that values education is better than one that doesn’t” Making a kid sit in a classroom all day when he and his parents don’t care about the outcome does not leave us better off.

It is more productive and thus lowers everyone’s tax burden

So we pay more in taxes for public schools so we can pay less in taxes… As it stands now many who leave the public schools are not prepared to be productive. So we pay taxes now to warehouse them in a school and pay later in social services, etc. How about just saving me the expense at this end?

An educated population is essential for a republic

And yet when I mention the very document that creates our republic you respond with

Oh please Lord…not one of these guys

sigh

No one forced you to.

No, you would simply force us to keep paying for a system we want to opt out of.

We have made a decision on the local, state and national level that it is in the general good for there to be schools. Like any other general good it gets paid from the general funds.

Even by those who choose to provide instead for themselves.

I oppose the guy in the story whining that he can’t use services he’s not paid for

He has paid for them - his property tax is financing that school district. He does not get one thin dime back even though he is not using it.

Besides, it is fitting and appropriate for we, the people, to decide that we want a certain level of spending per student and the only way to account for that is bums on seats.

How is it fitting or appropriate to decide that others not receiving the education be compelled to pay for it?

 

[Jennifer123]

ChrisR246:

No offense, but no, I don’t. I don’t need to have first hand experience of what a teacher does to decide that I don’t like being forced to pay for something I don’t use.

I don’t use the fire dept services or ambulance service or police service either but I will pay taxes for others to use them. We are our brother’s keeper…But if I have to pull my kids from the public schools so be it, hopefully (like I’ve posted earlier) the districts will get it.

 

[ChrisR246]

Jennifer123:

I don’t use the fire dept services or ambulance service or police service either but I will pay taxes for others to use them.

If the government did not provide these, I’m sure you could make a contribution on someone else’s behalf to have it provided to them.

 

[CarolAnnSFO]

Since I believe it is in the best interest of the public to have an educated citizenry, I don’t mind paying property taxes for a school system I don’t directly use (no children).

I do think there should be accountability, however. Children graduating from 12th grade should be able to read on a 12th grade level – ditto for math, science, and the other subjects taught – or the high school diploma isn’t worth the paper it’s printed on.

---

Crazy Internet Junkie Society
****Carrier of the Angelic Sparkles Sprinkle Bag

 

[ChrisR246]

CarolAnnSFO:

Since I believe it is in the best interest of the public to have an educated citizenry, I don’t mind paying property taxes for a school system I don’t directly use (no children).

That’s fine for you. But where do you (I mean the general you who support public education, not you individually) get the authority to compell the rest of us to also pay for it? Absent the public system, I’m sure you could simply pay directly for some child(ren) to attend a school. It would be like a scholarship.

Now ask yourself this… if you didn’t have to pay, but decided you would pay for one child, which would you pay for - a child who wants to be there or an equally smart child who does not want to be there and who’s parents don’t care?

 

[Jennifer123]

ChrisR246:

That’s fine for you. But where do you (I mean the general you who support public education, not you individually) get the authority to compell the rest of us to also pay for it? Absent the public system, I’m sure you could simply pay directly for some child(ren) to attend a school. It would be like a scholarship.

Isn’t this the way Mexican (nationals) children are educated in their primary system?

 

[Steve_Andersen]

…….So we pay more in taxes for public schools so we can pay less in taxes…

Where did I say “more” taxes.

…….As it stands now many who leave the public schools are not prepared to be productive.

Yes and I know people who were home schooled who are so stunted in their social skills that they can’t function in the larger world. What does that prove?

Some public schools are good some are bad
Some “bad” schools produce excellent students while some “good” schools produce wastrels.

My parish grade school was an academic travesty while my Diocesan high school was the best in the area

I went to a public university and did my graduate work in a private one. Both had their strengths and weaknesses

So obviously anecdotal evidence and generalizations are not what you base policy on.

Besides, that is not the point

…….No, you would simply force us to keep paying for a system we want to opt out of.

So….pacifists should get a break on their taxes too because they don’t want to fund the Army?
Should I not let my tax money go to flood victims in the mid west, hurricane victims in Florida, or earthquake victims out west because I don’t live there?

Should I ask them to give me back my portion of taxes that funds a park because I’ve never been to it?

The whole idea of a community (and a Nation) is that there are things we share.
Schools, roads, utilities, ports

This “I got mine, the heck with everyone else” thing just rubs me the wrong way. It’s not the country I was raised in.

If we all circle up the wagons and retreat behind out walls what does that leave us?

Do you really want to live like that?

…….He has paid for them - his property tax is financing that school district. He does not get one thin dime back even though he is not using it.

He chose not to use the system
No one deprived him of his right to use it.
The school is still there like the library, the park, the cop on the beat, the ports and harbors, the forest ranger, the lifeguard, the stormwater system, the traffic lights…….that is until some people want their taxes cut

If you rented an apartment and then went out of town would you expect to get a rebate from your landlord?

…….How is it fitting or appropriate to decide that others not receiving the education be compelled to pay for it?

Once again they Chose not to receive it.

They of course have the right the petition for changes and or to campaign for candidates sympathetic to their goals.

 

[ChrisR246]

So….pacifists should get a break on their taxes too because they don’t want to fund the Army?

Yes, and they should not be defended either. Admittedly, this is one of the tougher “free rider” problem, but not the one we are talking about.

Should I not let my tax money go to flood victims in the mid west, hurricane victims in Florida, or earthquake victims out west because I don’t live there?

A legitimate government derives it’s powers from the rights of the governed. As an individual, I have no right to compel you to pay for a house I lose in a flood, ergo, I can not grant the government the power to collect that money from you on my behalf. Admiitedly, enough people have decided they should, and are willing to use that force to do it, but that does not make it right.

The whole idea of a community (and a Nation) is that there are things we share.

Another component is that we come together willingly. Compelling others does not make a community.

This “I got mine, the heck with everyone else” thing just rubs me the wrong way. It’s not the country I was raised in.

This “Just shut up and pay for what we tell you, even if you don’t want it or like it. And be quick about it, or we will send some hard men with guns to collect it.” thing rubs me the wrong way.

If we all circle up the wagons and retreat behind out walls what does that leave us?
Do you really want to live like that?

You misunderstand me. I’m all for helping other people. What I resent is having a gun put to my head to do it on someone else’s terms, for a number of reasons. 2 chief ones being: I can better decide how a neighbor needs help and by allowing the government to compel paying for something I may agree with, I allow them to compel me to pay for things I don’t agree with (e.g abortions, stem cell research, aid to prop up dictatorships)

He chose not to use the system

Slick, but your original statement was that he wants to use something he hasn’t paid for. He has paid for it, but is not allowed to use some of it because he won’t use all of it.

If you rented an apartment and then went out of town would you expect to get a rebate from your landlord?

Nope. And if I already owned a home, a landlord could not come and force me to pay for an aprtment I did not want. If I did agree to rent an apartment, even if I never lived in it, as long as I was paying the rent the landlord could not prevent me from using the pool and tennis courts that were part of the complex. Unlike the guy in Beatrice who is forced to pay for the school district, then told his kid can’t use part of it because he doesn’t use all of it.

 

[KathleenElsie]

You misunderstand me. I’m all for helping other people. What I resent is having a gun put to my head to do it on someone else’s terms, for a number of reasons. 2 chief ones being: I can better decide how a neighbor needs help and by allowing the government to compel paying for something I may agree with, I allow them to compel me to pay for things I don’t agree with (e.g abortions, stem cell research, aid to prop up dictatorships

I firmly agree with you on this matter. We should have the option to tell the government where our money is spent. Government spending my money on morally objectional things makes me feel like I am part of the evil. There seems to be many people who want these things and they can pay for them as their option. To me this is like having a vote and would let the government know what we “the people” think.

Let the government set the % then let us place it where we see the most need. I would like my social and school share to go to our Catholic Charities and parish schools.
The government can have the defence money (I want my family safe and secure) and infra-structure eg.: highways, water and sewage and public land care. Oh I forgot I have a well and a septic system no Federal money for my area ever no political clout . Also have not had my road ever paved so maybe my road taxes could be paid to my township so they can care for our roads and not those 8 lane megga ways . As for public lands I feel the local people could do a better job if they were allowed to care for the parks etc.
By the time we have paid for all those layers of government workers our money is mostly gone and very little goes to where it is needed.
The groceries on someones porch when they get home. The day camp paid for by some unknown person. The older person that is given a ride to the Dr or just to the shopping center is a better way to serve then just sending the government money.
See we would still pay. Yet we then have some “control” over where it goes.

 

[ChrisR246]

I firmly agree with you on this matter.

Thank you for the support, but, no you don’t.

The government should not be involved in most of these matters at all.

The groceries on someones porch when they get home. The day camp paid for by some unknown person. The older person that is given a ride to the Dr or just to the shopping center is a better way to serve then just sending the government money.

Ah, this “gets it”.

 

[Steve_Andersen]

………You misunderstand me.

I certainly hope so otherwise…….

ChrisR246:

I’m all for helping other people. What I resent is having a gun put to my head to do it on someone else’s terms, for a number of reasons. 2 chief ones being: I can better decide how a neighbor needs help and by allowing the government to compel paying for something I may agree with, I allow them to compel me to pay for things I don’t agree with (e.g abortions, stem cell research, aid to prop up dictatorships)

Your herrings get redder all the time

Look what do you want? A check list on your tax bill about what you’re willing to spend money on? “Ok, I’ll take Mt Vernon, the 10th mountain division, and I-40”

Would you want a receipt with your tax bill each year saying you’ve now got credit for 10 library books, 1.5 kids in schools, and 37 hours in the park of your choice?

A system can’t work that way.
You can’t pick and choose what taxes you’ll pay or which laws to obey (alright you can be don’t moan if you get caught)

Flawed as it may be, democracy is the best we got and the key to democracy is that sometimes the other guy wins the vote. And in the Western system the legislative assembly of the people is sovereign; i.e. they DO have the authority to compel compliance.
Your choices are to try to change it, put up with it, or move.

And while “I can better decide how a neighbor needs help” sounds good it is a recipe for disaster in the aggregate.

………your original statement was that he wants to use something he hasn’t paid for. He has paid for it, but is not allowed to use some of it because he won’t use all of it.

And you’re making that weird assumption again that the collection of tax and the distribution of the funds is somehow the same or not relevant.

(1) While the father in question paid taxes, nowhere in that tax bill was any sort of connection between the money and direct service. Those without children and those whose children are not of school age have to pay the same amount. The money is to support the school system nothing more, nothing less. Many places have publicly funded university and high schools that have competitive entrance requirements…many places have scholarships that are awarded on ability; does that mean those that don’t qualify should get a rebate?

(2) While the “government” may have gotten the tax money the actual operating budget for the school in question is determined by the number of enrolled students. The salaries, rents, utilities, and (probably most importantly) the insurance are paid from the operating budget and not the general fund.

(3) The security and liability issues of having unregistered children on school grounds are staggering. That is a disproportionate cost that the father is asking the community to bare.

……… Unlike the guy in Beatrice who is forced to pay for the school district, then told his kid can’t use part of it because he doesn’t use all of it.

Like I said he wants to have his cake and eat it too.
The schools aren’t good enough for his daughter…except for this program…and maybe this….

It is a basic principal of civilization that that there are things we pay for that don’t have an immediate personal return.

I’ve been to places in the world where the rich take care of their own kids (and maybe those of a few of their favored peons out of “charity”) but everyone else is left to fend for themselves. I wouldn’t want to live in any of them

 

[Steve_Andersen]

………You misunderstand me.

I certainly hope so otherwise…….

ChrisR246:

I’m all for helping other people. What I resent is having a gun put to my head to do it on someone else’s terms, for a number of reasons. 2 chief ones being: I can better decide how a neighbor needs help and by allowing the government to compel paying for something I may agree with, I allow them to compel me to pay for things I don’t agree with (e.g abortions, stem cell research, aid to prop up dictatorships)

Your herrings get redder all the time

Look what do you want? A check list on your tax bill about what you’re willing to spend money on? “Ok, I’ll take Mt Vernon, the 10th mountain division, and I-40”

Would you want a receipt with your tax bill each year saying you’ve now got credit for 10 library books, 1.5 kids in schools, and 37 hours in the park of your choice?

A system can’t work that way.
You can’t pick and choose what taxes you’ll pay or which laws to obey (alright you can be don’t moan if you get caught)

Flawed as it may be, democracy is the best we got and the key to democracy is that sometimes the other guy wins the vote. And in the Western system the legislative assembly of the people is sovereign; i.e. they DO have the authority to compel compliance.
Your choices are to try to change it, put up with it, or move.

And while “I can better decide how a neighbor needs help” sounds good it is a recipe for disaster in the aggregate.

………your original statement was that he wants to use something he hasn’t paid for. He has paid for it, but is not allowed to use some of it because he won’t use all of it.

And you’re making that weird assumption again that the collection of tax and the distribution of the funds is somehow the same or not relevant.

(1) While the father in question paid taxes, nowhere in that tax bill was any sort of connection between the money and direct service. Those without children and those whose children are not of school age have to pay the same amount. The money is to support the school system nothing more, nothing less. Many places have publicly funded university and high schools that have competitive entrance requirements…many places have scholarships that are awarded on ability; does that mean those that don’t qualify should get a rebate?

(2) While the “government” may have gotten the tax money the actual operating budget for the school in question is determined by the number of enrolled students. The salaries, rents, utilities, and (probably most importantly) the insurance are paid from the operating budget and not the general fund.

(3) The security and liability issues of having unregistered children on school grounds are staggering. That is a disproportionate cost that the father is asking the community to bare.

……… Unlike the guy in Beatrice who is forced to pay for the school district, then told his kid can’t use part of it because he doesn’t use all of it.

Like I said he wants to have his cake and eat it too.
The schools aren’t good enough for his daughter…except for this program…and maybe this….

It is a basic principal of civilization that that there are things we pay for that don’t have an immediate personal return.

I’ve been to places in the world where the rich take care of their own kids (and maybe those of a few of their favored peons out of “charity”) but everyone else is left to fend for themselves. I wouldn’t want to live in any of them

 

[Digitonomy]

There’s a NY Times article about this general issue tomorrow:

Taught at Home, Seeking to Join School Activities

 

[ChrisR246]

Look what do you want?..(strawman…strawman…)

What I want is a government that keeps itself within it’s proper limits. A just government derives it’s powers from the people.That is, a government serves to protect and enforce our rights and responsibilities. You do not have the right to knock on my door and say “Chris, my kid is starting school tomorrow. You owe me $500 for his tuition.” And that’s nothing against you personally - no other individual has that right, either. If no individual has the right to do that then as a group they do not have the right, either, even if they do try to fancy the mob up by giving it a title like “the people”. If “the people” do not have the right to demand that I pay for any or all of their kids’ education, then the government can not suddenly start trying to collect it on their behalf. now, this concept is not exclusive to education, but I trust that you are bright enough to see how it would apply to other situations.

Flawed as it may be, democracy is the best we got

No, Democracy isn’t. Democracy is tyrrany of the mob. A Constitutional Republic, with the limits on government that I alluded to above is the better. Granted we have moved from Constitutional Republic to Democracy. You are correct, they will not hesitate to compel compliance (they maintain for themselves a monopoly on violence) and I’m more or less limited to the choices you outlined, but that does not make them right.

And while “I can better decide how a neighbor needs help” sounds good it is a recipe for disaster in the aggregate.

As opposed to letting the government decide?

And you’re making that weird assumption again that the collection of tax and the distribution of the funds is somehow the same or not relevant.

To the person paying, it is.

Many places have publicly funded university and high schools that have competitive entrance requirements…many places have scholarships that are awarded on ability; does that mean those that don’t qualify should get a rebate?

It means the government should not be using the ability to compel compliance to play favorites.

While the “government” may have gotten the tax money the actual operating budget for the school in question is determined by the number of enrolled students. The salaries, rents, utilities, and (probably most importantly) the insurance are paid from the operating budget and not the general fund.

In Nebraska, where both I and the family in the article live, property tax is levied on the behalf of the school district. The rate varies by school district, as each district sets it’s own rate. The operating budget has nothing to do with the number of students enrolled, but how much money is collected by the district.

Like I said he wants to have his cake and eat it too.

No. Money was taken from him to pay for a cake for other kids and now he is asking for some crumbs.

It is a basic principal of civilization that that there are things we pay for that don’t have an immediate personal return.

Certainly present and future values, investment, etc are all hallmarks of an advanced economy and so civilization. But you make an unfounded leap to say a government has the right to compel participation simply because it has the force to do it and is willing to use that force.

I know nothing is going to change. We are each flawed and so any human institution is going to be flawed. All the more reason not to grant too much power to a human institution. But it’s all temporary and only of this world. I just enjoy the mental exercise discussing what should be.

 

[KittyKat]

I really don’t have a big problem with home-schoolers getting to use some of the programs, but I hated it in high school when there would be someone who was taking several fun classes but they could still say they were home-schooled.
I didn’t mind the ones that were just in band, but it was so difficult to see students that had waited for a couple of years to take a class be told that they couldn’t since home-schoolers were in it.

I do feel that they shouldn’t have been placed above the full-time students.
Kat

 

[ChrisR246]

KittyKat:

I didn’t mind the ones that were just in band, but it was so difficult to see students that had waited for a couple of years to take a class be told that they couldn’t since home-schoolers were in it.

Would you feel the same way if a recent transfer student got into a class that someone “waiting for a couple years” couldn’t get into?

KittyKat:

I do feel that they shouldn’t have been placed above the full-time students.

Home schoolers are just as much “full time students”, just not at the public school.

 

[bapcathluth]

Steve Anderson, you are right on the mark, and you write so clearly and well. Obviously the schools you attended–both public and private did a great job!!

This world that Chris describes is frightening. We would have utter chaos.

 

[ChrisR246]

bapcathluth:

This world that Chris describes is frightening. We would have utter chaos.

1. You can address me directly instead of speaking about me in the 3rd person in a public forum.
2. Do you not find the secular humanist control of our mandatory public schools frightening?
3. A transition period eliminating public schooling and other government beuracracies that shouldn’t exist could be tumultuos. That’s no reason not to do the right thing. Furthermore, all kinds of problems are solved by people everyday without the government having to do it. There is no reason providing education to those who want it, etc, should be any different.

 

[kaj3]

ChrisR246:

1. Do you not find the secular humanist control of our mandatory public schools frightening?
2. A transition period eliminating public schooling and other government beuracracies that shouldn’t exist could be tumultuos. That’s no reason not to do the right thing. Furthermore, all kinds of problems are solved by people everyday without the government having to do it. There is no reason providing education to those who want it, etc, should be any different.

I agree with everything ChrisR246 has stated.

There’s a book called From Mutual Aid to the Welfare State: Fraternal Societies and Social Services, 1890-1967. It is about how private organizations – both charitable and non-charitable – were the main source of help for those in need prior to the New Deal. I have not read it, but have heard positive reviews from conservative commentators.

It may sound idealistic in today’s culture, but there was a time when it was unheard of for the government to be so heavily involved in our lives. And during that time, our moral fabric in this country was stronger because it was the people who were responsible for safeguarding our values, rather than having the government intervene in what the people did not want. (Roe v. Wade comes to mind (just as one example), which was a legal decision stripped from the states in 1973.)

 

[auppie]

Having had a son in marching band in a public high school, and having been actively involved in our booster group, I have the following remarks:

1. Most high school bands are way underfunded and the students and parents are expected to participate in most, if not all, fundraising activities. Our booster group raises over $50,000/yr. to fund the band and its activities, including parade entry fees–the teacher receives from the government supported school about $3,500/yr. to do the same. So some students and parents may be very resentful to this girl fighting for the band spot if she were to receive it, as she didn’t EARN her spot.
2. How would one determine where this girl is placed in the band line up? The kids participating in school bands have worked hard for many years. Students compete against each other throughout the school year for that prized position of “first chair”. Would she fall right into that place? Would this discourage students who worked hard? Would this cause students to decide not to participate in band ever again? It certainly could. And if the particpant numbers decline, then there possibly could be no more music program.
3. At band activities (all–during summer and school), the school pays for liability insurance to cover its students . Being as this girl is not a student, who is liable if she is injured? In this day and age of sue-happy people, the school has to protect all its interests. If it (the school) were to be engaged in a lawsuit, who would benefit? Certainly not the school. The entire school and the school district would lose.

The media being what it is has possibly put a spin on the story to portray this girl as a victim, and the public school as the monster. If something were to happen if to cause injury to this girl, and the school were sued, what happens to the quality of the education of the rest of the students at that school—not just the band students? Everyone would lose.

There are more considerations than “taxpayer dollars” to be looked at with this issue, of whether or not this girl should be allowed to participate.