Should any education be "free" - funded from taxes? Or would it be better to abolish public education and rely only on private schools?

Yes No see voting resultssaving...
6 opinions, 5 replies
Add your opinion:
Preview:
(mouse over or touch to update)
Add your opinion
100
User voted Yes.
3 votes
Dec 2, 2015

It definitely should be free until you're done with high school, no matter who you are and what your potential might be. In many countries, you need, at least, a high school diploma to have a decent job nowadays. High school is almost necessary if you want to live a normal life! Only very lucky or very resourceful folks can manage to live well without high school.

I also think that people who dropped out of high school and who now want to get their diploma should be helped financially. People without a high school diploma usually go back to studying because they need the diploma in order to get a job. Maybe we could make them pay one half of the cost - not all at once, maybe monthly, and once they get their diploma, they are reimbursed by the state who ends up paying everything in the end, just like normal high school students. Using the carrot technique could be beneficial since these new diplomas could mean new jobs. And of course the person would have a better life, crime rates might drop too...

After high school, and speaking about funding, I think two major elements must be taken into consideration:

1- The student's potential. If the student performed very well during high school ( and later ), the state should do everything to make him/her reach his full potential. It would be a shame to see a brilliant mind not being able to reach university because he/she doesn't have the money. The better you are, the less financial pressure you should have.

Of course, you'd get a different kind of pressure: the pressure of constant success! But hey, that's part of life.

2- The student's and the parents' financial background. If the student has rich parents, then I believe they should pay for a significant percentage, if not the entirety of the costs for the student's studies if the student wants to go to college and university. On the other side, parents who live in poverty should be spared from paying. The amount to pay would depend on how rich you and your parents are, and I guess it could also fluctuate, depending on the country's gross domestic product and other variables.

One problem we could have is seeing a poor student using the system to study for many years at the expense of the state. I think an age limit could prevent this. Once you reach a certain age, you have to pay more in order to keep on studying.

Another issue would involve parents not wanting to pay for their children's education. I think, once again, that an age limit could be good for this. If you are 45, I don't think it's your parents' responsability to pay for your studies anymore. But if you are 22, and if your parents are financially capable of paying for your studies, I think they should, even if they don't want to. Maybe 25 years of age would be a good limit?

So, yeah... I voted Yes, but I guess I'm between Yes and No. :P

subscribe
::unhide-discussion::
-1
User voted No.
main reply
1 vote,
May 2, 2016

The problem is.

Nothing is free.

If you're not paying for it then somebody else is. Nothing is free. They say things like healthcare and education are free in so many countries. But those countries have exponentially high taxes. That's how you're paying for it. If we make "education free" then taxes will just go up to pay for it.

Nothing is free.

What if a person doesn't have kids? Why should they be forced to pay for education for other peoples tricycle motors?

subscribe
::unhide-discussion::
0
0 votes,
May 25, 2016

I don't have kids, but I am happy to pay for education because I don't want to live in a city of ignorant imbeciles. Also, because I don't want to be followed around by hordes of homeless children begging for food and money.
Along the same lines, I'm happy to pay for garbage pick up, fire stations, public parks, and universal healthcare. Why?
I don't want to live in a third world country where I have to step over dead bodies on my way to work.

Paying for civil society has many benefits - including that you get to live in one!

subscribe
::unhide-discussion::
0
User voted Yes.
main reply
0 votes,
Feb 4, 2016

While I think this is perfectly reasonable, I would submit this:

  1. No one has a remotely accurate measure of potential.
  2. I would submit that community college should be free, or nearly so, for everyone, even the rich.
subscribe
100
User voted Yes.
1 vote
Dec 10, 2016

Nothing is FREE!

That said should tax payers pay to educate children and teens? Yes, it's part of our social contract, there are many things we pay for with taxes because of that social contract, much of our infrastructure is paid that way. Parks for example are paid by taxes, but not everyone uses the parks, or pools, or civic centers, some people will never use them but as part of our social contract we all pay for them.

subscribe
100
1 vote
Dec 10, 2016

Why such an extreme "solution", when instead you can attempt to generally lower the tuition fee somewhat, to make it affordable AND remunerative? I can imagine a "free education" will come at a (high) cost for something else. Or is it the kind of "free", where added expenses aren't mentioned yet, like hidden airline charges?

subscribe
::unhide-discussion::
100
User voted Yes.
main reply
1 vote,
Dec 11, 2016

There are many "hidden fees" supplies, activity fees, field trip fees, lunch tickets, breakfast tickets, maybe a bus fee or there may be a fee. That's assuming it's a public school, and not a private one. Now there are low income programs to help cover the cost of many of those fees if the child comes from an under income family. (I say under income because not because it's a PC word to say poverty because the program has different definitions for what the family gets charged based on income so a family may not fall under the poverty line and may qualify for free or reduced cost meals.)

So not really "free" but at very low cost.

subscribe
::unhide-discussion::
100
1 vote,
Dec 11, 2016

I actually wasn't even taking these kinds of supplies into account, as I tend to associate the word "education" with College. However, in NL we have this problem of grade school teachers having to buy learning material (intended for arts and crafts/decoration, but I think I've seen this includes writing supplies as well) from their own paychecks, being unable to declare the money they've spent. So as you said, "nothing is free".

subscribe
33
3 votes
Jan 7, 2016

Any education should be free.

subscribe
0
User voted Yes.
0 votes
Feb 4, 2016

Yes,

A society that does not guarantee an education is not a good society. It generates inequalities and fails to fulfill human potentials. It fails to develop human capital properly.

subscribe
0
opinion
0 votes
Feb 28, 2016

Education must be free, It is crucial to the future development of a country. Educated human resource is an asset to the country, Some countries are poor in natural resources but the general population are very well of..why because the young people have access to knowledge and education. It must be the responsibility of the government to educate and to invest in the education young people and produce educated workers needed by the country. Academic qualification is crucial to enter the job market. It is therefore necessary for the government and the giant private sectors to invest in the development of human resources.

subscribe
Add your opinion
Challenge someone to answer this topic:
Invite an OpiWiki user:
OR
Invite your friend via email:
OR
Share it: