Beat The GMAT a GMAT & MBA community

"Some people argue that those who do not send their children to public schools should not have to fund these schools through taxes, since neither parents nor children benefit from these schools. They ignore the fact that everyone benefits from the strong economy that a well-educated populace generates"

ANSWER


The issue of funding public schools by people who don't send their children to these schools is a controversial one. On one hand, the government by not raising funds for such schools, many under privileged parents will not be financially able to sponsor their children in aiding them to attending school and thereby will impact the entire economy to lack on the educational upfront. On the other hand parents who don't send their children to public schools don't benefit directly from the taxes they pay from which a part is towards funding such schools. However, in the final analysis I believe that state should continue its current trend of directing part of taxes towards funding public schools.

The chief reason for my view is existence of education to all students creates a strong economy, increases knowledge of students and creates an awareness of events happening around them. For Example, if such schools charge high fees, many people who cannot afford to send their children to school, will stop their children's schooling. Moreover, this will create a gap of knowledge between children of the same age, and thus these students will lack skills in order for them to get a job that requires certain amount of knowledge and skills. Finally, this would create a wide gap between the rich and the poor that will continue to widen if such schools aren't funded.

Another reason for my view is that education is of primary importance to the continued development of an economy. This not only creates a higher growth rate for a country, but also creates lots of jobs and better prospectus for all future generations. Specifically hidden talent could be brought about by exposing education not only to children whose parents can afford sending them to school, but also to parents who cannot afford such arrangements. The result is a high growth rate in education, better knowledge and skills required to get a high paying job as well as an increase in ideas which in turn benefits the entire economy.

Some might argue that they don't gain by paying taxes which are towards these schools, and they see no benefit of other children getting the required education. Yet, they fail to witness the long term benefits not only to those children who attend public schools, but also the gain for their children and the future generations. Others might cite that by educating all children will create a hindrance to the low paying jobs that require lesser knowledge and a low set of skills, and there would be no workers at the lower level in order for an industry to function. However, with education, people will be able to generate idea and machinery that involves less human interference and also carry out the tasks effectively, not only generating higher volumes but also a higher rate of turnover and profits for the industry.

In sum, I concur that people who argue that those who do not send their children to public schools will have to continue doing so because the success of the entire country is of more importance and if not directly, their children will benefit indirectly from such wide spread of knowledge, deeper understanding of industry requirements and well as in creating more skills for the development of all the people in the country.