To the editor:
I went with my little Sophia to purchase school supplies. I am not complaining about the school not supplying these. I accept the free market. While I prefer that families pay for these through taxes, I can accept that Lawrence families must purchase these items from private merchants out of their after-tax income.
My point is that the market in this particular case is very inefficient. It seems that school supplies specified by the school district fail to correspond well with the merchandising of these items by merchants. The "2 fine-point blue dry erase markers" provides a good example. Packages of four multiple colors medium-point markers were as close as the first store got to this spec. What am I supposed to do with the extra red, green and black markers?
As I stood straining over the marker section of the school supply aisle, I wondered if perhaps I had become obsessed with the precision with which I follow directions due to gazing too long at detailed federal grant application instructions. I also admit to an old school-induced anxiety about following directions. Another parent saw me squinting at the markers. She said she had visited every store in town, without luck, looking for these markers merchandised in quantities of one or two in blue only. Unless we are willing to pay for supplies through tax increases, I think consumers of school supplies would benefit from some Soviet-style central planning between merchants and the school district.
Rich Minder,
Lawrence
Comments
LJWorld.com doesn’t necessarily condone the comments here, nor does it review every post. Read our full policy. Also, read about banned accounts and harassing comments.
gaiapapaya (anonymous) says…
M&M Office Supplies offers the markers individually, as well as hand hugger pencils. The markers are about $1.50 each, so when you are buying for multiple kids, it adds up. I'm just going to order bulk off the internet next year.
And why do they only have to be blue? I understand the teachers need colors that will show up, but as long as the colors are dark, shouldn't they work?
bisky1 (anonymous) says…
you have got to be kidding.
first, why should old Bob, who is neither married nor a father be required to pay for your kids school supplies?
second, if cannot handle the "stress" and expense of raising children, do not have them.
Wilbur_Nether (anonymous) says…
Bisky1, the notion behind education in a democratic republic is to create a knowledgeable populace. The essence of the idea is that, since today's students will be voting in tomorrow's elections, it behooves the citizens of the republic to educate them.
In terms of self-interest, if "Old Bob" wants to have the kids in the schools choosing good representatives and voting for good policies in 12 years or so when they hit voting age. If, instead, "Old Bob" shares no burden of educating his society, he shouldn't be surprised that society starts making poor policy decisions that result in his disenfranchisement.
Check out the writings of some of the founding fathers on the topic. In a democratic republic, education is critical to the continuation of the democratic experiment.
bisky1 (anonymous) says…
Wilbur_Nether: i agree with the notion behind education and knowledgeable populace, but where do you draw the line? should taxes provide everything for everyone?
at some point people need to take care of themselves.
what i do not understand is why we can not teach people how to be good parents, which is the absolute key to quality education.
Wilbur_Nether (anonymous) says…
Well, bisky1, I think the discussion is probably moot, given the reluctance of the current legislature to provide for any sort of education through taxes and the reluctance of the current Board of Education to provide any sort of quality to the education.
Furthermore, drawing out the concept from providing for an educated population to providing "everything for everyone" is a rather extreme attempt at reductio ad absurdum. It's also a red herring. When Mr. Minder writes "I prefer that families pay...through taxes," I interpret that he is advocating for public education, which our founding fathers intended, and for the purpose you and I agreed to.
On the other hand, the reference to "Soviet-style centralized planning" concerns me--partly because when I was growing up we were taught that the Antichrist would be born in the Kremlin and partly because it is the very antithesis of the free market Mr. Minder claims to accept.
I think the rhetoric that good parenting is an "absolute key" is only rhetoric and not actually true. There are a great number of examples of people learning in spite of unsupportive/bad parents, and an equal number of examples of people with good parents who refused to follow along and take their educations seriously.
The quality of the educator(s) is also key. The learner's motivation is key. The support materials are key (ever try to teach someone to use MSWindows using only a textbook and lecture--no actual computer practice time?). The point is--there are lots of keys; none of them are absolute. If a democratic public wants to survive, it should provide for the adequate education of its members. When our state values low taxes over its responsibility to educate future voters...we deserve everything we're going to get in about 30 years.