WSJ: Public Schools Charge Kids for Basics, Frills

[Squigglenob]

MEDINA, Ohio—Karen Dombi was thrilled when her three oldest children were picked for student government this year—not because she envisioned careers in politics, but because it was one of the few programs at their public high school that didn't charge kids to participate.

Budget shortfalls have prompted Medina Senior High to impose fees on students who enroll in many academic classes and extracurricular activities. The Dombis had to pay to register their children for basic courses such as Spanish I and Earth Sciences, to get them into graded electives such as band, and to allow them to run cross-country and track. The family's total tab for a year of public education: $4,446.50.

"I'm wondering, am I going to be paying for my parking spot at the school? Because you're making me pay for just about everything else," says Ms. Dombi, a parent in this middle-class community in northern Ohio.

Read more here http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703864204576313572363698678.html

[GKirk]

1. Seems kind of expensive for a

'free' education. :(

[bluestateguy]

2. This is kind of chickens come home to roost for the parents

They voted to put these politicians in to office who slash school budgets in lieu of tax increases. So now, these same parents will be reaching into their pockets anyway to pay for the things that used to be covered by the schools. But hey no new taxes .

If I was a teacher in Ohio or Wisconsin the first thing I would cut from my personal budget would be money spent on school supplies. The parents can pay for those things themselves, or find charitable individuals willing to pick up the tab. Teachers are not social workers. It is their job to teach your child about English, history, science and math, not to be your child's babysitter or nanny.

[tblue37]

3. American voters do not realize that the taxes they used to pay spread the cost of

necessary public goods across the entire population, progressively adjusted according to how wealthy the person/corporation was and thus how much he/she/it could afford to pay.

Progressive taxation made such public goods affordably available to all.

But when those taxes were drastically reduced, that meant that everyone would have to pay out of pocket for those public goods, and most people really cannot afford what they cost when the cost is not spread around to include everyone, and to be progressive.

Voters figured they were saving money by having their taxes reduced, but they didn't realize that they would still have to pay for everything, but without the help of the population as a whole, and without the very wealthy, who have benefited so greatly from the public goods provided in the past, providing their fair share of public moneys.

Also, when federal taxes are reduced, the state has to raise taxes, cut services, or (more often) both. And when state taxes are reduced, local taxes and fees have to go up--and services usually have to be cut as well, since no one can afford enough fees to cover the whole cost of what used to be paid for by reasonable progressive tax rates spread across the erntire popualation.

Compared to the actual civilized countries of the world, our tax rates are very low.

I have often repeated the line that taxes are the dues a person pays to live in a civilized society. I don't know who first said that, but it is absolutely true