why isn't this fair

[farm5]

We as fisher people are more than willing to pay more to help support the environment and the propagation of more fish for us to catch. Those who are in charge of soliciting funds find it acceptable to charge us more for funds that will go to other causes such as schools. I pay over $2000 per year to support the schools in my area, I have no children and place no burden on the system. Granted, in the future I may benefit from some person's achievements and knowledge, I feel I've paid my share of that benefit. Now, if the system can not survive on what they are currently receiveing then perhaps those who choose to burden the system with children should pay their fair share. Ultimately, we will have to requuire those who choose to burden the system to pay their fair share. Tax deductions for dependants only promotes and compounds the problem. We all have to realize the true costs of procreation and those who feel a need to have an individual that we as a society have been burden with educating should not have to do it without a cost to the individual that burden the system. It seems that those who make the laws choose to tax those who drink alcohol, those who smoke and now those who fish and hunt. Why is it so unjust to require those who choose to burden the system to pay a litte more than those of us who don't. We have to solve the rediculus PERS system that is in place. There is no reason the state employees should not be entitled to the same sort of retirement that the general population has to accept.

I know those of you who have children will take offence to this way of thinking because you would rather have the rest of us support what you have choosen to burden the sysem with. When there was a family living on 2 to hundreds of acres the burden to the system was minimal and was supported by the normal tax system. Now we have a house every 10,000 square feet and apartment buidings with 1000's of single family household's with multiple burdens to the school system and the judicial system. Why should we promote this living style of living by providing tax detuctions for doing so.

We as fisher people are very willing to pay our way. I have not seen anywhere, those who choose to buren the education sytem step up and say "I am willing to pay more for a better education for my children", does anyone find that interesting? They had those children with the belief that we as a society where suppose to take care of them, well maybe that doesn't work any more.

[Snapset]

Think of the taxes you pay as paying for the education you have personally recieved. The people before you "Paid it forward".

[Straydog]

I AM WILLING TO PAY MORE FOR A BETTER EDUCATION FOR MY CHILDREN! As well as for the betterment of education for everyone's children.

I know and appreciate what education does for society as a whole. I know and appreciate that someone paid for my education and I have a moral social responsibility to pay for the education of my children and others.

I also know and appreciate the fact that your belief regarding the subject is in the minority and our system will survive despite the fringe folks that feel kids are merely a 'burden' and one should only have to focus on ones self in life.

[ 04-26-2003, 09:28 AM: Message edited by: Straydog ]

[corrirod]

farm5,

Where did you recieve your education? Your parents recieve theirs?

If your philosophy was granted then because I have my own weapons I shouldn't have to pay for the police, and since I haven't had a fire in my house I shouldn't have to pay for the firefighters. I don't use mass transit so I shouldn't have to pay for it.

I guess only the rich should be able to send their kids to school, is that what you're thinking? Who built your computer, who runs the internet that your on right now?

I pay for both my kids and my fishing. So if you catch more fish than me, should you have to pay more?

[sinker]

Imagine the value of your home if people quit paying for education in your district.
Good schools are good for the whole community, whether you have kids or not.

[farm5]

I understand all the opinions that have been expressed. I don't consider children to be a burden, thay are individuals that we as a society have a responsibility to insure they can be all they can possibly become. What my parents had to contribute to my education is extemely different than what parents contribute now. When I was in grade school the mothers took turns doing kitchen duty and preparing the lunches for everyone in the school, now most mothers work and we hire and expect others to perform this task for us. There are many examples like this that used to be done by the parents themselves. I realize because of the high costs to survive now days that both parents must work and the free and willing efforts that my mother made no longer happen. I pay willingly and dearly for our education system athough I have no participants in it. I sincerly hope for the best education your children can receive. I am simply saying in this time of financial crisis that you who are participants and direct receiptiance of the system, that you should stand up and say how much more per child do us as parents need to pay to insure an acceptable education for our children. I don't know why the funding system that used to work doesn't seem to work anymore. You who are involved in the system need to get it figured out, if you have to pay a few hundred bucks per child, I would hope you would be willing to do so. I pay plenty and yet the system is in serious financial trouble. I only ask that those of you who are directly involved get it figured out and pay what it takes to insure a suitable education for your children, I already pay plenty

[otter]

farm 5

All I can say is thank you for choosing not to contribute to the gene pool.

[STGRule]

Never mind.

[ 04-26-2003, 09:03 PM: Message edited by: STGRule ]

[sinker]

How about instead of worrying about how much it's going to cost to send my one child to school you investigate where your money is going. As a husband of a school district employee I can assure you there is waste that can be eliminated to keep taxes down.
The people in the schools that make decisions on money are no different than any other state agency. spend spend spend. They have a large pocket to get their money from. ALL OF US!!

Dont' get me wrong, I feel that good schools are good for the whole community. Everyone benefits from them. Higher resale values on houses, lower crime, etc.

Do I care enough about the waste to raise a stink about it?? Nah, I've got better things to do.

[Silver Hilton]

For every child's income that we are paying for now, in twenty years, 15% of that child's income will be going towards our social security. Do you want that child to be making 20,000 a year, or 80,000 a year?

It's only your retirement that you are thinking of. Think slowly and carefully before you answer.

[Smj]

Rude comment otter.

Here's what I hear farm5 saying.

""I pay plenty of taxes, and I'm fine with that, but the schools are still going to the dogs.

Maybe the people that have three...four...five..six++ children should pay more, or at least not get more breaks on their taxes with every child they produce.""

If that's not what he's saying, that's what
I'm saying!

Smj

Ya' don't haffta worry, none 'o my jeans are in the pool!

[Straydog]

One problem with all is this is that many parents do pay above and beyond their taxes to make the schools (and other entities such as Boys and Girls clubs, youth soccer, dance classes etc, etc..) work.

We attended our school's carnival last night. It is a fund raiser put on by the PTA.(PTA pays for our music teacher, for one thing) Long before the carnival we (my family) donated about $150.00 worth of sporting goods stuff for the silent auction and raffle. At the event, we dropped close to $50.00 on chili dogs, tickets for my daughter to play the games, raffle tickets and the $30.00 silent auction item my wife purchased. Plus, being on a couple of school related committees and such, as I entered the school I was greeted by two teachers scared to death for thier jobs with budget questions....
Let's see, one event, about $200.00 and my time explaining budget issues to teachers. I have no guilt about my contributions to the sytem.

There is great parent participation at our school and our family is but one of many that contribute way above and beyond our taxes.

Further, the teachers also contribute, in many cases, hundereds of dollars for school supplies, snacks, clothes, books and other essential items for the schools.

What I really think is that every citizen should make it a point to spend some time in the schools as a volunteer or simply an observor. I get a bit tense when I read from someone that has no children claims about what the schools do or don't do, how much they should spend to do it and how they misuse what they do have. I have the same problem with people that do have kids but never participate.

Farm5 said exactly what he said. You can change it all you want SMJ but what he said was what he said....... "burden" my rear. Our kids are what will continue to make this country what it is. I feel for anyone that misses out on the joy of raising kids for what ever reason, but don't be throwing words like 'burden on the system' around and expect this parent to sit back and take it quietly.

One more thing. I am sick of hearing our schools are going "to the dogs". Our schools here are doing a very good job with what they have to work with. Despite budget cuts the last 15 years we are still putting out well educated, well adjusted kids that are going on to become very productive citizens and making our lives much better and safer. One of our friend's kids, a graduate from North Valley Highschool is flying jets in the Middle East right now, having graduated from the Air Force Academy. Burden my rear. He is but one example of thousands that are doing very well, thank you. Most of our schools in this district have shown steady increases in test scores while
fighting budget cuts year after year. Our elementary school just recieved an "excellent" rating by the state. We have a high percentage of kids that go on to higher education. As soon as some of them get done being "burdens on the system" they may be monitoring the life support that keeps us alive when we are "old and in the way" (thank you David Grisman). Do you want the kid that had inferior education due to your greed to monitor your life down the road??

Before I have to read uninformed people's replies about "what's the problem, you are doing fine in your schools?" know that it is becoming more and more difficult to maintain this level. As we continue to cut we are having to look at the more experienced teachers to eliminate. We are having to look at transportation to eliminate or reduce. We are having to look at eliminating all co-curricular activities at the mid and high school level, we are looking at eliminating librarians, we have put a freeze on text book purchases, we are cutting an already lean administrative staff and the list goes on and on.

The point is, we can not continue to cut dollars from education in a society where costs are going up daily and expect the system to continue to produce those that make our country great.

[ 04-27-2003, 10:54 AM: Message edited by: Straydog ]

[Boedy]

Can someone tell me what Oregon spends per child for education and where that ranks us in the national average?

[Boedy]

OLD SCHOOLS, NEW CHALLENGES: Will more money alone produce better results?
STACY BECKER, Guest Columnist / St. Paul (Minn.) Pioneer Press

Last fall Minnesota voters approved new public school taxes of nearly $150 million dollars a year to improve their children's schools. Polls report that, nationwide, 75 percent of Americans are willing to raise their taxes by $200 to $500 per year to improve their schools. Americans agree to tax themselves because they continuously hear that schools could be improved if only there were more money.

Over the last 30 years, per-pupil spending in the United States doubled, from $3,272 in 1969-70 to $6,508 in 1998-99 (measured in constant 1998-99 dollars). In Minnesota, spending increased from $3,724 per pupil to $6,791.

Maybe we're afraid of what would happen if we didn't provide more money. The percentage of Americans who have a great deal or quite a lot of confidence in our public schools has been falling steadily, from 58 percent in 1973 to 36 percent in 1999.

Let's look at what our willingness to spend has accomplished so far.

On the most recent national assessment tests, only 17 percent of America's 12th graders tested proficient or better in math, 18 percent in science, 26 percent in civics and 40 percent in reading.

Many of us like to believe that the problems are not with our school, but with someone else's school. But if so many children are performing poorly on proficiency tests, chances are that some of these kids are in our schools, too.

It is true that Minnesota students outperform the national average on proficiency tests. Even so, only around 40 percent of all Minnesota eight-graders perform at a proficient level on achievement tests in reading, science and math. Central city and rural students perform less well.

What do students report about school? Seventy-one percent say that most students do the bare minimum to get by and 45 percent report that some kids graduate even though they haven't learned what they're supposed to.

Employers? Roughly two-thirds to three-quarters say that recent high school graduates' skills are fair or poor, depending on the skill.

Teachers? One-half of new teachers quit teaching within their first five years.

Compared to other developed countries, the United States also ranks high in per pupil spending. A survey of 24 developed countries showed that 1998 per pupil spending in secondary schools in the United States was surpassed only by Austria and Switzerland; add Denmark at the elementary school level. But many countries that spent significantly less — such as the Netherlands, Australia, the Czech Republic and Hungary — outscored the United States in math and science.

Americans can't necessarily conclude that they spend too much or that all expenditures are unwise. We want our teachers to be paid well, and our class sizes to be reasonably small. But perhaps we don't know how to spend money in the ways that will improve student achievement.

Kansas City is an example where too little money was regarded as the problem, but more money failed to bring the hoped for results. In 1985, a federal judge took over partial control of the school district. The school district responded by greatly increasing per pupil spending. It reduced student-teacher rations to 12-1, increased teacher salaries and built state-of-the-art facilities.

Twenty years later, there is physical evidence of money: beautiful new schools with facilities that rival those of wealthy suburbs. But student achievement has remained stubbornly poor. The federal judge quit the case in frustration.

Among the largest 100 school districts in the nation, Minneapolis and St. Paul rank 4th and 7th, respectively, for per pupil spending — with Minneapolis spending $9,625 in 1999 and St. Paul spending $8,119.

Even with spending 50 percent higher than the national average, one-third to one-half of the students in the two districts fail to graduate in four years. In 1998, only five states ranked lower in average proficiency in reading for eighth graders in central city schools.

Because of results like this, many foundations that were long-time financial supporters of public schools — like the Edna McConnell Clark Foundation and the Heinz Endowments — have begun to withdraw from education funding. The foundations may be on to something here. Making "more money" the solution implies that "too little money" is the problem. Might there be another answer to fixing schools?

In many ways, our nation's greatness is a result of its public school system. We believe in the importance of our public school system. So when school administrators' make their election-time pleas, we respond by taxing ourselves in the best interest of our children and our country.

But perhaps it's time to ask ourselves: Will more money truly make a difference for our children this time around? Or should we be looking elsewhere for answers?

[Straydog]

Interesting opinion piece Boedy and I think it asks a very good question.

The first thing I think we need to do is look at each situation individually. I guess that is one reason my gills flare when I hear "the schools" this or "the schools" that. As noted (although not thoroughly explored) in the piece you posted, inner city and rural schools stand out with lower test scores. (might poverty, ie money, have something to do with this?) There are many subcategories within these distinctions as well as a myriad of other distinctions that need to be indentified and considered.

In looking at the broader, big picture as this article does though, I think it is very telling that the decline in education has taken place in the last 30 years as noted in the opinion piece.

While I enjoyed the period very much, I have always felt that the late '60's, and 70's produced, overall, a lot of poor parents. The "do your own thing" and "me generation" didn't work out for producing responsible parents willing and ready to make raising their kids their first priority. We are a class that sees day care, three cars, bigger boats and "me" as more important than the responsibilty of raising our kids. To too many parents, kids are indeed a 'burden'. I think it was a general social swing brought about by the "children of the '60's." The odd thing about that is that that movement professed to be about slowing down, turning our backs on the "plastic" materialistic life. Unfortunately, that kind of moved into the "do your own thing, party till you puke and its all about me" movement..

The social ills that that attitude creates is what our schools are dealing with today. Kids from broken homes. Latch key kids. Kids exposed to more than they are able to handle at ages they shouldn't be expected to handle such things. Turn on most any mainstream TV show and it is all about sex, drugs, and rock and roll. Look at the newspapers; drugs, rapes, fathers killing their wives and kids and not near enough of the good things that are going on. Sex, drugs and violence sell media but, in my opinion, begat sex, drugs and violence. Especially since the media (TV in particular) is what our kids spend more time with than their parents.

The more we as a society expect the schools to pickup the slack of irresponsible parenting, the more we can expect to pay for it, in my opinion. One thing to consider that can't be answered but is worthy of thought; where might we be if we had not spent more money in the examples the article sites?

BTW, our district was allocated $7,076.70 per student (although we didn't get that much) from the state to run our schools. TFG has posted more district numbers on a thread on the main board about the Gov. wanting to take our ODFW money. A word of caution though, each state mandates different things from it's schools so comparing our costs with other states can be misleading. As an example, our state pays a certain percent (70% in our districts case) of busing costs while some states do not mandate busing. I recently read an article about Colorado where by some districts are charging parents up to 250.00 a year for busing. That figure will not show up in what the state pays for education.

We also have higher than average Special Education costs in Oregon. My experience is beginning to tell me we need to reevaluate Special Education and it's costs in this state in terms of what we classify as Special Ed., what we are willing to pay for the extreme cases and if those costs should really be coming out of Education dollars. I had an interesting conversation with a special ed teacher the other day. She is responsible for a girl with severe mental problems. We pay this gal to drive a short bus out about 15 miles to pick this one child up and transport her to Medford, 30 miles away to a special facility that is equiped to 'educate' this gal. (our state says that EVERY child will recieve education). The teacher was telling me she is too old (53) to handle this child and is becoming fearful for her health and safety. She explained that this special ed child is now 12 years old and getting big. She said "as tall as she is getting, the last time she head butted me she hit me right between the eyes!" There is another case of a child I am aware of whose "education", madated by the state mind you, is to teach him to feed and dress himself. Granted, these are extreme cases but still, consider what we spend for a small percentage of kids overall. Should the dollars we spend to care for these kids be coming out of education budgets or elsewhere?

The thing is, there are Federal Grant dollars that are based on what is called Maintenance of Effort in regards to Special Ed. IE., if you don't continue to spend as much state money on special ed as you have in the past, you will lose federal monies paid for Special ed........ kind of like the zero based budget thing, spend it and more or lose it.......

[ 04-27-2003, 10:33 AM: Message edited by: Straydog ]

[Snapset]

I have children, and they are enjoying the support of taxpayers by getting an education. However, they are also going to be net producers soon and they will be supporting all of society, not just me, the person who brought them into the world. The people who will benefit from their productivity ought not to be carping about the cost of educating them. If you don't understand this point, then you should go back to school to learn a little about Economics.

As far as the cost of educating the little darlings, IMHO the lack of quality we percieve in our schools is due to a state mandated lack of focus in the mission of our schools.

State school funding should pay only to teach these things:
History
Math-for problem solving skills.
Government/Civics-to include basic Economic theory
Communication
Science-Should be part of the math curriculum.

Art, P.E., Forestry, Shop Classes, Home Ec., Business., Health, etc., could be financed by local funding as the local community deems necessary.

Special education is a separate issue that should be funded as a separate bond issue or under a separate tax measure. It would be a good measure of the Charity of our society.

[Hoosier Daddy]

Originally posted by otter:
farm 5

All I can say is thank you for choosing not to contribute to the gene pool.

<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">

and I disagree that people have to have both parents working to survive in today's society. Its about personal choice. If you choose to live in a huge house, drive a new SUV, have a cell phone for everyone in your house, update your computer and internet technology every 6 months, buy the newest jet sled, ATV, jet ski, etc. then YES, you probably need as many people working as possible. However, if you live within your means, it doesn't necessarily have to be that way. It's about priorities and personal choice. Too many people nowadays have their own "lifestyle" and comfort as their priorities instead of raising their kids to be solid contributors to society. Gotta be a good consumer, you know, regardless of who ends up raising our kids.

Please don't take this as a bash against both parents working. It is possible to do that and still raise your kids to be decent. However, I think part of the problem is that with so many people working to buy toys (IMO), a good portion of them don't pay enough attention to their kids. At least more so than 40 years ago....

IMO, again.

[Straydog]

I agree HD.

We make it on one income. Don't have the newest toys. Don't do elaborate vacations. Camping is our vacation. Don't have large fancy home but not a dump, either.

We have a blast with our kids and don't miss any of the above.

[Snapset]

Hoosier Daddy. I thought of writing in something along the lines of your reply. You said it better.

[Lepper]

Just think of it as paying your education back with interest...

It is not just a parents responsiblity to pay for education.. It is a societies responsibility. One that I pay for yet I have no children and am willing to pay so that our future leaders can have an education.

[Snapset]

PDX, I too considered home schooling, but I decided not to. Many of the things kids have to learn in order to be functioning adults, they will learn at school better, IMO. Things like how to deal with a bully, when and when not to accept the authority of an adult, how to spot someone in trouble so they can help, etc...

My own protective instincts told me that a lot of what my kids learn in school, I would rather that they never have to learn. Things like having a thick enough hide to ignore the barbs and slings..
Who would ever want their child to grow up less sensitive than they are before they go to school?

The fact of the matter is they are going to grow up into adults anyway, and although we want them to hold onto their inner child, we can't prevent that transition from child to adult.

I admire those who do school their children at home. I just didn't feel capable of teaching all the things that they would learn through the social interactions at school.

I agree with you about the schooling reimbursements. If the kids are being taught just as well at home, why not pay the parents to do the job?

[The Fishing Geek]

Hoosier:

As long as one of those two parents has a decent income, then it is possible (heck, quite easy) to make it on one income. My wife works one night a week, otherwise we make it on what I make. I'm not going to say that we're struggling, but at the same time we end up doing without a lot of the niceties that many of the folks we know have. No boat, one vehicle, partially-working 8 year old VCR, etc.

I wouldn't have it any other way.

[snowball]

I have to agree with most here, although some of us have children, some don't, the bottom line is that we received our education, as our parents did etc, and should accept that we are paying now, for the education we received x years ago- seems like a fair trade. Educate me now as a child, and I'll pay it back later as an adult

[ 04-28-2003, 01:41 PM: Message edited by: snowball ]

[pdxkevin]

I am a firm believer in a quality education which is why my family is seriously considering homeschooling.

Shouldn't those who homeschool be given the tax money that otherwise the state applies to that school district? After all it is only fair. Just a thought to see the conversational current swirl.