<p>Kluge–Since there are complaints about parents (belligerence, indifference etc) is the the problem more cultural maybe than policy driven? (I know this is totally your own universe driven…just go for it)</p>
<p>Same to you Spideygirl…knowing your circle of opinions…what would you say? Cultural, policy, regulation?</p>
<p>
I think the reason public education isn’t mentioned in the Constitution is pretty much the same reason the Internet isn’t mentioned there, either, and my Constitutional analysis would be similar for both.</p>
<p>Public education has developed historically as a local, and more recently, state government function. I think most people are OK with that, although every once in a while you’ll get something like NCLB instituted from on high, which people take sides on.</p>
<p>gouf78 - I’m not sure what you mean by “cultural.” There are certainly different challenges posed by different groups of parents, although the result can be much the same. Parents tend to see their kids as “special” and that any criticism of their kids performance or conduct constitutes “picking on them.” This seems to be a near-universal trait, across many cultures. But certainly indifference and lack of involvement tend to be far more prevalent in low-income communities, with resultant adverse effects on the educational process.</p>
<p>In California, back in the 70s there was a decision: Serrano vs. the Board of Education. The ruling (hugely shortened) said that the state collected all the property taxes into one pot and distributed evenly on a per pupil basis. Poor schools, due to Title 9 I believe, get more money than non minority schools. The result? We’re down there with (sorry) Mississippi. </p>
<p>Spidey: Move on. Life isn’t fair. You can’t make it fair in your utopia. Why? Because people succeed and fail in all walks of life. I find it troubling that you excuse people breaking the law because of the mantra…I want it fair. We tried “fair” here, and California has sunk into an abyss. It isn’t who you sit next to the helps you succeed of fail. It isn’t how many kids are in a class (when I was in school we had 42 kids in a class…no aides, no parents to help), or worksheets or lack thereof) Everyday children learn from their teachers, from their parents and by example. And children from the “best” schools will fail, and children from worst schools will succeed.</p>
<p>I have made if very clear that people who lie to get their children into a district teach their children more about life than Harvard ever could. They are taught that to obtain something, in this case an “education” you can lie and steal from others. And lest you think only the downtrodden lie to get into districts: think again. Some of the wealthiest people do it. It is a mindset of me first and I deserve it.</p>
<p>And lest you think I exaggerate I was acquainted with an extraordinarily wealthy family who rented an apartment here to obtain residency. The bodyguard lived there. (yeah…bodyguard). The district came knocking one morning and …the kids wasn’t there. But there was a bedrooms set up for them. The kids went to school here for two years and then left for the beach.</p>
<p>And the father? Six years for billion dollar bankruptcy fraud. Again, you teach and condone lying and theft you get thieves and liars.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>This is interesting. If the family rents an apt, is it not legal for the children to attend the local school even if they aren’t in actual residence? If the issue is property taxes, aren’t they paying those taxes through the rental? Is there a difference if they bought a place but actually lived in another district? If no one else was living in that property and attending school? I guess it does get a big confusing. Could someone please explain the law here? Thanks.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>This is too funny!! Thank you for that :)</p>
<p>spideygirl: I don’t have any ideas for fixing public education. None at all. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>That sounds great. But it seems like you aren’t in support of that education for the children of illegal immigrants? But you are okay with citizens taking advantage of others’ tax dollars by attending school in the wrong district? What kinds of taxes do you want to support schools and who should get to attend them in your opinion?</p>
<p>Spideygirl - you aren’t alone in that idea, assuming this site is legitimate.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>[Are</a> Americans Right About Their Constitutional Rights?](<a href=“http://company.findlaw.com/pr/2006/091806.constitution.html]Are”>http://company.findlaw.com/pr/2006/091806.constitution.html)</p>
<p>Is there some place that says public education is a constitutional right? Where does this idea come from? This is pretty interesting.</p>
<p>The only reason I know it’s not in the Constitution (of which I know almost mothing) is because one of the few remaining facts left in my head is that there weren’t schools like today in colonial or precolonial America.</p>
<p>Public K-12 often felt like indoctrination rather than education to us.</p>
<p>^^indoctrination of what?</p>
<p>In my county, domicile is required so renting just for school attendance is not acceptable. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Thanks catera, it hadn’t occurred to me it would vary by district - duh! - so I guess the idea is not only that you pay taxes but are also part of the community and contributing as such to the whole system? That does make sense to me since many parents are contributing much more than their taxes, supporting their local schools in ways that can’t really be reduced to $.</p>
<p>I live in an area with great schools and one of my neighbors “arranged” for her grandson to attend the area schools. He was dropped off by his parents every morning so he could catch the bus from here and he was dropped off here everyday by the bus. I’m not sure how they handled the necessary documentation but the kid definitely did not live in the neighborhood.</p>
<p>Put me down as someone who would not judge or punish a parent concerned enough about education for their kids to break the law to get them the best education possible. I applaud them.</p>
<p>sewhappy - Here is where I get honestly confused.</p>
<p>You and spideygirl on several threads talk about how evil it would be to raise taxes on rich people to pay for services for those less fortunate. But those illegally attending school in districts where they don’t live are essentially stealing from a wealthier community to advantage themselves - the less fortunate. And you both approve? What do I not understand? Maybe I am seeing a connection that isn’t there.</p>
<p>I am sorry if this is too political. 
Please delete me but not the thread.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>So what else would people steal to give their kids the best? The best food, the best health care, the safest car, sneak them into Harvard? </p>
<p>Unfortunately, even with education, the rich have the right to pay for a better product.</p>
<p>Ummm, you’re forgetting the great equalizer: scholarships for the needier students.</p>
<p>As to why it was illegal for the family that I mentioned to rent an apartment in which theyh didn’t live to send their kids to school: The kids (and family) are supposed to LIVE in the apartment.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>That’s a really simplistic take on what I think. I think that taxing the so-callled rich (which usually means affluent professional couples with no real accumulated wealth) to do the usual sort of government programs is not of meaningful value to those who are struggling. I think a great, booming economy is. And I don’t think raising taxes is the way to get it.</p>
<p>Have you read Keynes? I have and just don’t think it is the ticket. I’ve evolved a lot on my views on this. An open mind is a beautiful thing.</p>
<p>sewhappy - I am a very simple mind with no knowledge of economics. But I still don’t get the difference.</p>
<p>
No, it doesn’t. It means people with so much accumulated wealth that their annual income is as high as that of affluent professional couples - without having to work for it. Would it be that you find yourself among what you describe as the “so called rich?” I’m guessing you’re not a member of what you describe as “those who are struggling” who you think would not find “the usual government programs” to be of “meaningful value” because that might alter your analysis.
And as the saying goes, sometimes where you stand depends on where you sit… ;)</p>
<p>A lot of people have criticized Keynes on a variety of points. Funny how his thinking came back into fashion right about the time that the policies which ignored his analysis pushed us about 90% over an economic cliff. Even Richard Posner has declared that he is a Keynesian now. [How</a> I Became A Keynesian | The New Republic](<a href=“http://www.tnr.com/article/how-i-became-keynesian]How”>How I Became a Keynesian | The New Republic)</p>
<p>"Since the United States Constitution does not guarantee education, there must have been a good reason why the folks who wrote it left that out. "
OMG!! Unbelievable. Where did you go to elementary school?? Did you not pay attention in US History classes?
The constitution was written in the late 1770’s, when there was NO SUCH THING as public schools in America and most people lived in rural areas!! A formal education was something that only the privileged few were able to receive. Most children learned how to read and write at their parents knee, if they learned it at all…</p>
<p>Well, the constitution starts with ‘All men are created equal’ but it does not elaborate much on entitlements that make sure all men remain equal. Make of that what you wish.</p>