The cost of education

[Feisty Mouse]

From another thread, on a special-needs boy and a situation with the school...

Taxpayers have made it clear: they DO NOT WANT to pay what it actually costs. To defend that position, they frequently come up with all sorts of alternative explanations and weird plans...charter schools! more computers!! do away with tenure!!! bust the unions!!!! let business advertise and run schools!!!!

I tend to agree.

How much do you think we should be putting towards education? I tend to think that, in this country, we shaft the educational system financially, and don't think of the consequences for these kids as they grow up and become the next generation of Americans. I think we are selling our nation short by not "investing" (literally and figuratively) in our kids and schools.

Thoughts?

 

[RandomPhantom700]

In a book titled "Fixing Columbine", which I read for a college violence course, the author (sorry, I forget her name) argues that a flawed educational system contributed to what she refers to as "Columbine writ large" (i.e. the big-picture, culture-wide problem that resulted in the Columbine massacre). In this critique, she claims argues that many of the reasons for leaving education to the separate states are either outdated or flawed logic. I will have to review her arguments, but I remember agreeing with most of what she argued in favor of federalizing the education system. Or at least improving national standards.

And yes, just plain more money for education could help. The C-hallway waterfall (which wasn't supposed to be there) in my high-school comes to mind, as do the beat up books.

*sigh*

 

[MisterMike]

Yea, I'd rather have bumpy roads than dumb kids runnin' around. They should just try it for a year. Cut the budget on potholes for one year and dump the cash into new books, pencils, crayons, markers, class trips, after school study groups and see what happens.


The appropriations are simply imbecile.

 

[Flatlander]

According to this page, the estimated total federal outlay for elementary and secondary education for fiscal 2004 was $30.628 billion.

The estimated total federal outlay for military research, development, test, and evaluation was $64.331 billion.

Seems pretty clear where the priororities lie.

 

[AnimEdge]

combine them! Military School

 

[Makalakumu]

From another thread, on a special-needs boy and a situation with the school...


I tend to agree.

How much do you think we should be putting towards education? I tend to think that, in this country, we shaft the educational system financially, and don't think of the consequences for these kids as they grow up and become the next generation of Americans. I think we are selling our nation short by not "investing" (literally and figuratively) in our kids and schools.

Thoughts?

I think the corporate model for education emphasizes throughput...getting as many kids through the system as possible with a homoginized curriculum. In an ideal corporate world, a teacher would teach from the book that the federal standardized test would measure. There are no decisions, no skill, no difference - ch 1, 2, 3. There is no need for real skilled labor and the teaching profession becomes a revolving door job, just like Mcdonalds. You learn the basics, reading, writing, and arithmatic, enough to function on the job. If your parents want more, they can enroll their kids in a private school, provided their kids pass the tests to get into the private school.

NCLB gets the ball rolling on the above model. We get the basic skills testing. We get teachers teaching to the test. We get states lowering the bar to hire more teachers. We also get a majority of teachers who walk off the job in less then three years. Affluent schools are being labeled as unsatisfactory. Poor schools are being excoriated. The wealthy are fleeing to private schools and vouchers are on the butchers bill.

Welcome to the "would you like fries with that" education model. Four more years!!!!

upnorthkyosa

PS - Alright, I'm done ranting...

 

[JPR]

How much do you think we should be putting towards education? I tend to think that, in this country, we shaft the educational system financially, and don't think of the consequences for these kids as they grow up and become the next generation of Americans. I think we are selling our nation short by not "investing" (literally and figuratively) in our kids and schools.

Thoughts?

I am not sure that it is a matter of money. My wife and I have chosen to send our children (2) to a private school. We pay $3000 / year, more or less, for each, while Indiana spends, on average, $7192 / student (according to 2000 data from the Department of Ed ). For half the price, the private school provides an education that is at least the match of the public school (it arguably exceeds based upon test scores, but that would start a different discussion).

So I am not convinced that more money is the answer.

JPR

 

[michaeledward]

The unanswered question concerning private schools, is could they handle all of the students? What would happen if we closed all the public schools, had all the parents get their local property taxes back, and put that $3,000.00 a year into your private school? What would happen to the quality of your private school, when, instead of having 120 students, it had to deal with 1,200 students?

I have a daughter in the 'Alternative School' in our district. There are two teachers for every class of 24 children. Costs are slightly higher per student than the 'traditional' school (approximately 7,000 / student tradition : 8,500 / student alternative). I can only measure this anecdotally, but my daughter's performance at the 'Alternative School' far exceed what she would be capable of in the traditional classroom.

Here, a bit more money and a whole lot more dedictation has made a huge difference for some children. Unfortunately, only a few students are able to get a seat at this table. And, they are the 'at risk' children. What would happen if all students were given a similar environment?

mike

 

[shesulsa]

What would happen if all students were given a similar environment?

What an excellent question. And I assume we are all talking non-secular private schools, which are harder to come by, no? I went to parochial (private church) schools through eighth grade and attended public high school. What a difference.

Personally, I think the small teacher-to-student ratio made a huge difference. My eight grade class had seven people in it and we shared a classroom with sixteen seventh graders. But I think the reason church-associated private schools are so successful is because of the nature of religion - mind control and manipulation. I have not had the opportunity to view non-secular private schools other than Montessori schools (different topic), but they do have smaller populations and simply raise the bar of expectation without the mire and muck of standardized testing.

That's right - private school students do not have to take standardized tests, thus the teachers may concentrate on educating the children and tutoring those in need instead of teaching children how to pass a test.

So I'm not sure the amount of funding is the real issue - I think it's all about HOW the money is currently being spent and the expectations on the students and teachers...AND parents. We all do know, following test scores, that high test scores tend to be related to income level (sucks, but it's true). Some believe that when a family has higher income, they are most likely to have higher education, which sets an example on the children to perform at higher levels which they fulfill. However, it has been noted by our PTO that funding for schools in higher-rent districts is disproportionately higher than the funding received in inner-city districts which have higher populations (and more minority children).

By-the-by: I've never been able to find a private school for as little as $3,000.00 per year! Where do you find such a deal? Did you have a coupon??

 

[deadhand31]

I may have mentioned this before, but Milwaukee pioneered the program that was recently set forth nationwide. In the late 90's, it was realized that the MPS (Milwaukee Public Schools) were providing substandard education. It had been in the state's history for the past decade to throw more money at the schools, and hope they improve. This did not work. My mother even had a nurses aide at a nursing home who was an MPS teacher. My mom asked her how she found time to set up lesson plans, and the teacher stared at her blankly. Basically, the kids were getting tons of money spent on them without the benefit of a better education.

Then the voucher system came along. Failing public schools became stripped of funding for children to be sent to private schools. These schools were faced with a sobering decision: improve on your own without extra funding, or slowly be shut down. All of the sudden, their jobs were on the line. For every year since then, the performance of MPS has increased, WITHOUT ANY ADDITIONAL MONEY.

This helped the state out financially. The private schools ended up sending a lot of money back, since they didn't use nearly as much per student as MPS did. Also, the MPS schools got better, because the teachers now knew that the union wouldn't be able to hold their jobs for them if the schools got shut down. The teachers union opposed this measure, and still oppose it to this day, even though the kids are getting better education everywhere. I would have to say that money is not the end all. Maybe it can help in SOME cases, but alot of times it's because there is no teacher accountability.

 

[Feisty Mouse]

For every year since then, the performance of MPS has increased, WITHOUT ANY ADDITIONAL MONEY.

How was performance measured? Were teachers merely teaching the standardized tests to their students so that they could keep their jobs?

The private/pubic school issue is a complex one. I went to private school for a while - it was a totally different structure. It was hard. I am so, so thankful my parents scrimped and saved and went without to send me (and sib) there - it gave me an amazing education. Part of that - small classes. Also - even though my parents paid a LOT, there was alumni giving, so the school could remain afloat.

 

[michaeledward]

I may have mentioned this before, but Milwaukee pioneered the program that was recently set forth nationwide. In the late 90's, it was realized that the MPS (Milwaukee Public Schools) were providing substandard education. It had been in the state's history for the past decade to throw more money at the schools, and hope they improve. This did not work. My mother even had a nurses aide at a nursing home who was an MPS teacher. My mom asked her how she found time to set up lesson plans, and the teacher stared at her blankly. Basically, the kids were getting tons of money spent on them without the benefit of a better education.

Then the voucher system came along. Failing public schools became stripped of funding for children to be sent to private schools. These schools were faced with a sobering decision: improve on your own without extra funding, or slowly be shut down. All of the sudden, their jobs were on the line. For every year since then, the performance of MPS has increased, WITHOUT ANY ADDITIONAL MONEY.

This helped the state out financially. The private schools ended up sending a lot of money back, since they didn't use nearly as much per student as MPS did. Also, the MPS schools got better, because the teachers now knew that the union wouldn't be able to hold their jobs for them if the schools got shut down. The teachers union opposed this measure, and still oppose it to this day, even though the kids are getting better education everywhere. I would have to say that money is not the end all. Maybe it can help in SOME cases, but alot of times it's because there is no teacher accountability.

Odd ... as I look at a quick report concerning the Milwaukee Public Schools, one of the first bullet points listed is :

http://64.233.179.104/search?q=cache:sqTba5n3rxMJ:www.schoolchoiceinfo.org/data/research/ACF6pnkza.pdf+Milwaukee+Public+Schools&hl=en

Real spending per pupil increased ($8,520 to $11,772) as did state support for MPS ($396 million to $649 million) between 1990 and 2003.

deadhand31 .... there seems to be some inconsistancies between your statement "WITHOUT ANY ADDITIONAL MONEY" and the report which shows at 38% increase.

a little knowledge is a dangerous thing.

 

[rmcrobertson]

I love reading the excuses for this country's refusal to spend what education costs, to make sure that every kid gets an equal shot at a good education, and to face realities about poverty and class--in other words, I like to collect the alibis for ducking out on the commitment to public education.

Yes, there are poorly-educated teachers out there, especially in inner cities. Yes, there are some bad teachers out there teaching away. Yes, there are incompetent and corrupt administrators and school boards. Yes, there are whacked-out and bogus theories being taught throughout education schools. Well, duh.

Are there more of any of these in education than there are in, say, businesses? Nope. Yet funnily enough, we don't seem to hear a lot of demands to clean up businesses and corporations--even though characters like Ken Lay threw away enough money over the last ten years to fund every school in Michigan at the rate they should be funded.

Historically, our educational system has depended on the grossly underpaid labor of millions of women teachers, and often the unpaid labor of lots of clerics and nuns. Moreover, our schools didn't really teach all that much--now, everybody's screaming for schools to do more, more, more, and simultaneously screaming that taxpayers should pay less, less, less.

We could fix all this. We won't. Some of you will scream about unions. Some of you will scream about high taxes. Some of you don't want biology classes to teach evil-lution; some of you frizz your hair about teaching "Huckleberry Finn;" some of you get all hot under the collar about actual sex education rather than this "abstinence," nonsense; some of you get all upset if schools teach books by gay people; some of you think the Most Important Thing is the Pledge of Allegiance; some of you think that bilingual ed solves everything; some of you think that bilingual ed is code for "illegal immigrants."

So, your solutions are whack: say the Pledge, bring back forced prayer, hunt down illegals, do away with tenure, bust unions, let religious fanatics run the schools, teach Creationism as a legit scientifc theory, get rid of the books by Those People, whatever--just so long as you don't have to pay any money or actually support what good schools would mean.

A few years back, the Governor of Texas, Ann Richards, together with the guy in charge of Texas education, Jim Hightower, tried to get a fair education for ALL of Texas' kids, by taking all of the tax money for the state that went to education and dividing it up equally, so every kid got the same funding.

The republicans and rightist democrats, together with--guess who?--pounded the table and screamed and race-baited. Richards got beat. Bush got elected. Texas schools still display grotesque inequalities in funding.

$3000/year for a private school? That's great. Love to see the salaries they pay.