Should people be forced to pay for educating other people's children?[W:188]

Henrin said:

Schooling is a service that costs money to provide. Education is something you do your entire life time that may come at a very high cost or be completely free. The responsibility to educate children is not one all of society has, but one that parents have towards their children.

Click to expand...

The reality is some parents fail horribly at fulfilling their basic parental responsibilities and society is the default responsible party.

Henrin said:

Schooling is a service that costs money to provide. Education is something you do your entire life time that may come at a very high cost or be completely free. The responsibility to educate children is not one all of society has, but one that parents have towards their children.

Click to expand...

You're trying very hard to make a distinction between learning during adolescence and the continual acquisition of knowledge after one's formal education years (i.e., K-12 and/or college). Adam Smith would likely disagree with you here. Although he spoke of the skill level and, thus, the education of the laborer from the context of the more the laborer know of the business and how the various manufacturing divisions worked together to create the whole of the product, he was clear that a well educated society ultimately lead to a very productive and, thus, prosperous nation.

The idea that only those who care enough for their children and, therefore, entitled to educate their children and that society should have no part in the education of those children born of parents who did not care enough about them is a very absurd notion. At a time when the abundance of the wealth of a nation is in the hands of a small few, it soon becomes apparent that even responsible parents cannot reasonably afford to finance a well rounded formal education for their child(ren). We, as a nation, are experiencing that now. As such, the premise of this thread is thus:

ronpaulvoter said:

Did you know that so-called public education is one of the planks of the Communist Manifesto? Should the freedom-loving American people be forced to finance the educations of others who are reckless in their child-bearing?

Click to expand...

The supposition being that couples who have more children than they can afford to raise should not expect the greater of society to bear the financial responsibility, in whole or in part, to education said children. Just because the couple does not believe in birth control (or does not practice safe sex) does not mean that the children should necessarily become a burden on society and, therefore, go without any form of a formal education. You do that only if you wish to keep a certain segment of society beholding to you. Is that what you really want? Slaves, servants and the very dredge of society creating chaos and disorder?

Neomalthusian said:

The reality is some parents fail horribly at fulfilling their basic parental responsibilities and society is the default responsible party.

Click to expand...

Very true.

The OP, however, suggests that the children of the so-called "irresponsible parents" should be left behind as far as their education is concerned. I think that is a wrong way of thinking for the greater good of a nation. As citizens of this great nation, we should all strive to ensure that every child has a chance to become a positive member of society. What better way to ensure this than to educate our young no matter the economic background of the parents?

Objective Voice said:

Very true.

The OP, however, suggests that the children of the so-called "irresponsible parents" should be left behind as far as their education is concerned. I think that is a wrong way of thinking for the greater good of a nation. As citizens of this great nation, we should all strive to ensure that every child has a chance to become a positive member of society. What better way to ensure this than to educate our young no matter the economic background of the parents?

Click to expand...

Conservatives who attack public education as a whole are shooting themselves in the foot and thus (in my opinion, because I am conservative) indirectly doing harm in the overall sense.

Education is small potatoes in terms of the expenditure of public funds. The teacher tenure system needs to be reformed but not because we shouldn't compensate teachers fairly, rather because the tenure system rewards and protects inferior teachers and undermines opportunities to younger entrants to the teaching profession. And the easy credit for extremely expensive university education needs to be reformed too, because it does no one any favors that 18-year old kids can accept tens or even hundreds of thousands of dollars of debt before they've figured out why they're going to college in the first place.

Beyond that though, leave education alone. Arguing to abolish the Dept. of Education is not only political suicide, it hurts the entire conservative side of the political spectrum because too many people think "yikes, that is a bit radical." Republicans would get farther by acknowledging the great things about public education while advocating targeted reforms.

Yes, usually.

Public education is an asset to society as a whole. The basic education given to children is beneficial to them and to other interacting with them. There are few exceptions.

I do wish that we (Americans) did more public magnet and trade schools though. Some kids should not go into math and science careers. Instead, teach them things they're more likely to excel at in high school.

College is a little more shaky, in my opinion. I don't know how much public funding should go to give people more degrees. There is only so much you can educate someone before the majority of it is unused or worthless.

Also, I don't know the benefits of educating the mentally retarded. There are likely benefits to having them associate with others and others associate with them. I just don't know in what ways the money should be spent to maximize benefit and how much is necessary.

Objective Voice said:

Very true.

The OP, however, suggests that the children of the so-called "irresponsible parents" should be left behind as far as their education is concerned. I think that is a wrong way of thinking for the greater good of a nation. As citizens of this great nation, we should all strive to ensure that every child has a chance to become a positive member of society. What better way to ensure this than to educate our young no matter the economic background of the parents?

Click to expand...

Also only a small minority could be "responsible parents" if the demand was that people having children promise to pay for not only food, shelter and other necessities but also both healthcare and schooling for their children. Because children takes almost two decades to raise and a lot can happen during that time. That at the same time their are fewer and fewer "secure jobs" because of globalizaton and rapid technological development.

That at the same time having children is not a luxury but a necessity for society to function and survive.

Re: Should people be forced to pay for educating other people's children?

For me, the problem isn't paying. Educating young people is a community function. My problem is we're not getting our money's worth. We pay a lot, it's been increasing much faster than inflation, and the results aren't there.