Should Taxpayers Dollars Essay Example

called served as a radical, yet cheap educational method for those who were not part of the church. Its popularity quickly spread and became a standard for education worldwide.Unlike its Church counterpart, only a minimal fee of four shillings per year was charged from the parents of the students and materials. Lancaster himself personally funded education at the start and personally found ways to cut corners and yet give quality education to those who needed it the most. During this time, the "monitorial system" became highly successful and developed its student base as this school taught more than the basics.

Some of the classes offered were foreign languages, sciences, and mathOn the other hand, there was the private educational system that was backed by the church and attended by those who could afford to pay to attend it. Being religion based, it was often attended by the members of the royal family and their court. Their concentration was more on the religious beliefs and indoctrination while the "monitorial system" concentrated more on entrepreneurship and developing leadership abilities.In the United States, President De Witt Clinton was the first to advocate the beliefs of Lancaster and had Benjamin Perkins investigate the Lancaster method when he was sent to England on business. The outcome of this investigation resulted in the Society for a Free School advocating the Lancaster method. Through Clinton's influence, private funding was acquired but resulted in a collection less than the initial government grant of four thousand dollars.

Any more shortages in financing were made up for by taxation on taverns and alcoholic drinks. It was this subsidy that changed the face of the Lancaster

method and continuously evolved until the 1960's, when it evolved into the Public Schooling system that we know today. To quote John Chodes who wrote the article State Subsidy to Private Schools: A Case History of Destruction (1991),"No longer were the poor and disenfranchised the targeted student group. The new aim was universality. This was the state’s position through its common schools, putting it on a collision course with both the common and the religious schools."The government funding for private education has been a debatable topic throughout the history of the American educational system.

Government funding exclusively for the Public Schools became a hot bed because it was a universal educational system that, due to the reason that the mission objectives of the system, allowed both the privileged and under privileged to attend the public schools. It became an unfortunate fact that excise tax collection was the way the school system was kept funded. While parents had the choice of which school system to send their child to, they were not given the choice to not pay for the taxes that would go to supporting the public schools in case they chose the private school system for their child.As the missions and objectives of both private and public schools have blurred, so have their student body.

Their students are now as ethnically diverse as ever and both schools now accept high and low income students into their fold. Yet, for all its current similarities, both are still run by two different systems. According to Dorothy Blaney, president of Cedar Crest College (2004), " The major remaining difference between public and private institutions is their governance

systems. Public institutions have direct oversight by the state, while private colleges retain independent governing boards. Both, however, are accredited by the same associations and held to the same standards.

Private institutions are also chartered by the state and mandated to meet state and federal requirements before they can be eligible for any public money for themselves or their students."Chodes argues at the beginning of his article that the reason the government is considering having the taxpayer dollar fund private education is because the parents themselves are clamoring for it. It is his opinion that parents today no longer believe that a public educational system is sufficient for their children. So the parents themselves are the lobbyists for this program because they hope to obtain free education while still having control over the content of their children's educational system.From a political standpoint, The Third Party and Independents (2003) said that, "Republicans want to extend these bad programs to private schools - by issuing vouchers that will force private schools to obey federal rules.

" Private schools do not answer to the government the way a public school system does. In effect, the taxpayers have no say in the way a private school is run because this entity is run by a separate board of directors who shall spend tax money in any way they deem best suited to their own needs. This should disqualify them from receiving a subsidy because these schools are not held accountable to the government and are required to meet the standards of the No Child Left Behind Act.Any funding given to them will further weaken the public school system because it

will deprive the public system of badly needed funds for facilities development, teacher training and others. These aforementioned reasons are the reasons why the American University Association of Women (2006) has the following stand on this issue, "AAUW believes the appropriate strategy for improving our nation’s schools is to direct resources toward improving public schools, rather than diverting public funds into private institutions.

"There is a belief that if the government funds private schools, the educational playing field shall be equalized for the students of both schools. This is a total myth. Since, as I mentioned earlier, public schools are bound by law to accept any and all students wanting to attend school. This is the rule regardless of race, skin color, physical and mental ability. Whereas, private schools follow a strict and rigid screening procedure designed to weed out their idea of the "poor students".

According to a posting at the forum of the Americans United for the Separation of Church and State, "Public schools will improve only if our government officials and the public decide to make a serious commitment to educational quality. Diverting money from public schools to private schools will not achieve this goal, but will hurt the nation's public education system."The government has tried to divert attention from private school funding by disguising the funding under various names. It has been called vouchers, scholarships for inner city children; tuition taxes credits, or even education savings accounts. Regardless of what it is called, it still means the same thing. Taxpayer dollars are being redirected towards financing private educational systems at a time when the public schools need the most support due to

the influx of immigrants and an aging school system.

It might be easier to accept that the taxpayer dollars will be redirected towards supporting private education if there were any conclusive evidence to support the claim that it will be beneficial to all the students concerned. Instead, what has been proven is that his family background determines that the way a student performs in school.   The Mainstream Loudon - A Voice in Moderation (2007) reminds us that, " Voucher (subsidy) programs are not grass-roots driven but are often promoted by wealthy foundations with political agendas. In Milwaukee, the Bradley Foundation directed $7 ½ million toward diverting public school funds to private and parochial schools.

Not surprisingly, Milwaukee is one of only two cities to have implemented voucher programs.While parents hotly debate this issue and the government representatives try their best to ram the private education funding or subsidy down the throats of their constituents, educators also have their own beliefs regarding the implementation of these policies. These educators have two arguments; both highly valid and logical support the stand of those who disapprove of the subsidy. Their first argument as stated in the website for Clearinghouse Assessment and Evaluation is that " The first reason is that many believe that education should be free and should be provided to every child.  They believe that government dollars should be supplied only to public schools. Their belief is that if children are leaving public schools, and the government gives that money to a private school, public schools will suffer an even greater disadvantage then they already have.

  These educators who are against school vouchers feel that instead of

causing failing public schools to close their doors permanently, they should be given additional funds to help them succeed."The second reason has to do with the separation of Church and State. Using the GI Bill as an example, educators believe that, " The GI Bill is a prime example of what happens when government funds are used to allow recipients the freedom to choose their educational facilities.  Many chose learning institutions that were religious in nature.

  The concern is that government money would be used to fund tuition at religious and parochial schools.  This has posed a threat to the voucher program and recent findings in Florida have called the voucher program unconstitutional."There is also no truth to the belief that funding for private schools will save taxpayers money because they are cheaper to operate. Private schools, being predominantly sectarian based, has more affordable operating costs because they are already partly subsidized by the church members. The private schools run by private entities also have cheaper operating costs as all the expenses of running the school is passed onto the parents via tuition fee and miscellaneous fee payments done at the start of every school year.

If funding is allowed, the taxpayer shall shoulder the cost for more obligations over and above the basic cost of funding a public school.American society in general, seemingly is against the idea of taxpayer dollars being used to support private education. Although there are varied views and beliefs regarding the matter, there is an echoing belief that using tax dollars to support private education is merely a ploy of the rich to get a free ride for their children

using the lower and middle class to benefit their own personal interests. Public school is there for the children whose parents want him to be well educated but cannot afford private school fees. Students in private schools come from affluent families whose parents choose to make the best education their money can buy a priority for their kids. As such, private education need not be funded or subsidized by taxpayer dollars because that would destroy the very essence of public free education.

The public educational system is there to make sure that no child is disenfranchised when it comes to education and that he gets the educational benefits that his parents can afford to give him.For the sake of argument, let us mention that the parents of the students in private schools also pay the same mandatory-tax dollars to subsidize an educational system their child is not a party to. Since the government does not ask them what kind of school their children attend, where it be private or public, should they not be allowed to get a part of that funding to support the educational system that is benefiting their children? In my opinion, the answer should still be, no. Why? Well, the public educational system is in place so that, should the rich student's family fall unto hard times, the same child can fall back unto the public educational system to which his parents are contributing and therefore assures him a place at the table no matter what happens. Funding or subsidizing private education with taxpayer dollars would send the public school system budget reeling and cause the whole system to fail because

the budgets are over stretched as it is.

Taxes, in its general form are paid for the benefit of all members of society. Education or school taxes are paid by the general society for a specific purpose. The purpose of the tax payer dollar funding for education, is to make sure that the under privileged children and children of those parents who wish to avail themselves of the government provided education, have a chance to grow up to benefit the society that supported them. Private schooling is a personal option for parents and therefore should not be funded by taxpayers dollars as this act will have a direct shock-wave effect in the funding for the rest of the students in the public school system.I believe that the real issue in this matter is that public school is paid for by the taxes of the people whose kids attend these schools. But the government has now decided that it is unequal.

By diverting the funding to private schooling, the government will have performed an unconstitutional act. Private schools exist mainly as religious schools and by funding such schools, the government will be forcing the citizens of the country to support schools that may or may not be sharing the same religious beliefs as the individual citizens. The constitution clearly states that no government subsidy may be given to sectarian activities. Yet, all the bills introduced in support of this legislation are very clearly going to be used in support of sectarian schools. 80% sectarian schools make up a large part of the private education sector.Our government has lost sight of the original reason that the Free School

Society was started all those years ago.

The government has no right to siphon off small amounts and give it to special interests that do not attend public schools. Public education is no longer at its best at present, by using taxpayer money to fund private education; they will make the school system even worse.  The money that used to go to good schools will now end up going to the bad ones and private schools that do not really need the funding since their students can afford to pay their yearly fees.Those who support the tax payer funding of private schools often use two arguments in support of their case. The first is that tax funding will allow the lower to lowest income bracket of society the choice of sending their child to a private school. Implying a choice that does not exist because private schools have final approval on all enrollees.

Their other argument t implies that the public educational system is inferior and funding private education with tax dollars will force the public schools to shape up and get into competition with their privately schooled counterparts.  How can there be an even level of competition between the two system when the private system has the edge of cherry picking their students and expelling those who cannot keep up while the public schools, as I keep saying, have to accept everyone who wants to study. Recent testing has proven though that when the students from both systems test side by side, neither outshine the other in the results.There is however, one major issue that the supporters of this legislation fail to see. The

tax-paying public will be forced to deal with double taxation. No one has ever mentioned the obvious, that is, there will now be two taxes to be paid.

A tax in support of public education, and the other in support of private education. Currently, private school tuition is not considered a tax but rather is considered a totally separate expense that the parents choose pay for the sake of education their children. Upon closer analysis of the double taxation problem, one will come to the realization that these private schools already get a form of funding from the taxpayers. For those in sectarian schools, the parents are, most often, regular church contributors. For those in private but non-sectarian schools, the parents are usually charity supporters and regularly give checks to the school to help benefit the charity or the school programs "in support of the charity." Who is to say that these contributions are not used to help finance the running of the school?We must develop a clear view as to why using taxpayer dollars to fun private schools is simply the worst idea that has ever come out in terms of "educational support" from the government.

If we allow tax funding, the whole American society would be indirectly supporting across the board discrimination based upon religion, disability, and gender. As well as allowing these entities to dictate upon our free will regarding who and what acts should be acceptable in our society.Each citizen of this country is expected to invest in its future. This investment is done in the form of mandatory taxation that benefits the members of the society with a blind eye.

Every person is entitled to government support in everything they do but within certain parameters that makes the funding an equalizer for everyone concerned.

Education is a great equalizer in our society. Each person has the freedom to learn and be educated even if he cannot afford to pay for it. The government pays for his education, even if he is not a very bright student because in the future, he will end up helping his country. It is a cycle of support for those who need it.

They have their whole life and a bright future ahead of them. They just need some support to achieve it. That support starts with education, in any way they can get it.  Those in the upper bracket of society life have some excess income that they choose to spend on their child's education in a private school. That is a personal choice. It is not fair to those who cannot afford private education to have to share what support the government can give them with those who do not need the help.

  So, should taxpayer dollars be used to fund private education? I believe the answer is as clear as day. No, taxpayer dollars should not be redirected nor used to fund private education.