Education

wbjones wrote:

93EXCivic wrote:

wbjones wrote:

93EXCivic wrote: <b Show me a college which doesn't cost an arm and leg. I mean my college was ranked as one of the best colleges for value and it still cost $740 per a credit hour plus either $600 a month for dorms or $500+ a month for apartments plus books and other fees. It is still expensive and it is getting harder to get a job without a college degree.

here's a site that'll list a few...one of them even in Ky...... http://www.walletpop.com/2009/11/09/cheapest-colleges-13-standup-schools-that-cost-less-than-5-000/

Except that one offers no engineering program.

BYU does......Cooper Union for the Advancement of Science and Art does....University of North Carolina-Chapel Hill does ('course you'd have to pay out of state tuition ), University of Virginia does (again out of state tuition), Rice does..... etc... etc ....

Except all those schools except BYU are more expensive then UAH.

$740 a credit hour for an out of state school doesn't strike me as particularly expensive, particularly for an engineering degree.

fast_eddie_72 wrote:

wcelliot wrote: Eddie, I apologize for attempting to engage you in intellecutal debate. I'm out, the thread is yours.

Let's have an intellectual debate. What about the busing issue above. Do you agree that it is an enormous waste of taxpayer money to use 43 buses to get kids from all over an Ohio county to two schools? Do you agree that it would save a huge amount of money and lower the "per pupil" cost of *public* education if they stopped paying for this service for students at *private* schools?

Agree with you completely on the first point and in principle on the second. It would indeed save money, but not a "huge" amount compared to the elephants in the room.

Do you agree that the cost for that is included in figures that add up all the sources of education funding and therefore, those numbers are not an accurate reflection of public school costs?

Disagree. You can't separate the two. Like it or not, it's inherent in the system and is the major portion of the problem. It would like trying to separate out the costs of UAW labor when discussing how to lower the price and increase the quality of a new GM car. To substanitally fix one, you must fix the other.

It's interesting that you think competition/choice within the bureacracy will improve things (where we both agree), but allowing expanded choice is categorically rejected out of hand.

A lot of your suggestions are excellent for small, incremental improvements. But again: That you cannot substantially change costs or system performance by protecting the bureacracy and insulating the system from outside competition

Are you guys still talking about 93Ex's tuition cost?

Otto Maddox wrote: Are you guys still talking about 93Ex's tuition cost?

No. We're not. We're talking about the larger issue of publicly funded education which is what he asked about. He asked why it gets cut. The answer is complex and that's what we're exploring.

wcelliot wrote: Agree with you completely on the first point and in principle on the second. It would indeed save money, but not a "huge" amount compared to the elephants in the room.

One step at a time. I'll take that.

wcelliot wrote: Disagree. You can't separate the two. Like it or not, it's inherent in the system and is the major portion of the problem. It would like trying to separate out the costs of UAW labor when discussing how to lower the price and increase the quality of a new GM car. To substantially fix one, you must fix the other.

Okay. You say "disagree" but what you explain is "not practical". The way the system is currently set up, if I’m reading you right, you don’t think it’s possible to eliminate the cost of busing with public money to private schools. But we looked up some examples and found that in Georgia, for instance, and there are probably other places, they are able to do just that. So it can be separated if we chose to do it.

wcelliot wrote: It's interesting that you think competition/choice within the bureaucracy will improve things (where we both agree), but allowing expanded choice is categorically rejected out of hand.

I think it might improve things. I think it's worth exploring. But, yes, I think government subsidy for private industry is going backward.

You called it "interesting". I agree it's an interesting point of view only in that it's so rare that anyone has consistent views on issues like this. I'm certainly more liberal than you, and most would associate "liberals" with support for government subsidy. I do not. Without debating the specifics (sometimes there are situations that force us to make calls we are ideologically opposed to) in general, I agree with people who say government bailouts are bad. Some may argue that in some cases we had little choice. That's neither here nor there. In this case we do have a choice. I chose no government bailout of private schools and I consider it a liberal position in the interest of "the people".

wcelliot wrote: A lot of your suggestions are excellent for small, incremental improvements. But again: That you cannot _substantially_ change costs or system performance by protecting the bureaucracy and insulating the system from outside competition

I get your point and am not arguing semantics. It's just that the words you chose are so perfect for my point. You say "a lot" and "incremental improvements". Exactly what I'm saying. I called it the death of a thousand cuts earlier. That's exactly what I think has happened to public education. And if we're going to improve it we will have to make a lot of incremental improvements, which is exactly what I've been exploring in my line of thinking in this thread.

You can hold the position that it won't, ultimately, lead to significant improvement and you may be right in that assessment. But I would suggest that small changes are a lot more possible than a radical overhaul of the education system. And at the worst, it would save a little money. Why not move that direction? Maybe it doesn’t get us anywhere. But there’s no harm in it.

Again, I'll reference the health care bill because it fits so well. Moving to a system that I think you are advocating would mimic the health care bill in scope and approach. Take the public funds we’re spending on education now, and allow people to spend those funds on private education. I’m not sure if that’s an idea you’d like to see tried or not. But that’s the impression I get. Feel free to correct me. I think that kind of measure would be just as difficult or more difficult to pull off than the health care bill was. And just as neither side really likes what we came up with there, I don’t think either side would like that either. And just as there was a public outcry about tax dollars going toward private banking and auto companies, I think there would be public outcry about tax dollars going toward private education. Ironically, I just thing you’d have to move around the “R”s and the “D”s on the name supers, but could use the same sound bites. In the health care debate, the Republicans suggest that we should have made smaller, incremental changes. I doubt their sincerity in actually making those changes, but their proposed approach may be right. I just wonder why none of them did any of it when they had total control of Washington.

The figures in the articles I posted were hundreds of thousands of dollars. I bet that's a fair bit of money for many school districts. But save that ten times and it's some real money. Do it a hundred and it's a lot by any measure.

fast_eddie_72 wrote: Home schooling is one. Ironic that the advocate of home schooling is denouncing his ability to make a choice.

You misunderstood me.

I am not denouncing my ability to make a choice. I said I would have options if there were vouchers, etc. It would open up the door for private choices, transportation costs to better districts, or augmenting our home schooling efforts with a few dollars that would be VERY well spent. I have made a choice. I would like to make a better one, but my options are limited by others.

I am also not advocating home schooling. It's not a great option for the vast majority of people. As I previously noted, I wish I didn't have to make that choice. I am, however, showing through my experience with home education that the expenses of public schools are completely out of line for the quality of what they are offering.

SVreX wrote: I am, however, showing through my experience with home education that the expenses of public schools are completely out of line for the quality of what they are offering.

I hear you and I'm sorry if I mischaracterized your intent. And we agree that the expenses of the public education system are out of line with the quality of service they offer. But I do not agree that the expense of the actual schools is the problem. Yes, you would have more options if the government subsidized the expense of private education. I could get a Ferrari if the government would subsidize the cost. There are choices we have that we elect not to peruse. Saying that the government should pay for it because I can’t, in my opinioin, isn’t a good answer.

We have been looking at the sources of funding. Okay, we're on the same page. That's more money than it should take to run the schools. But we have also seen that those dollars are not getting to school classrooms. If that is the problem, let's attack that problem.

The question is, where is all that money going? People like to say it's "wasted". Well, "waste" is a subjective term. But it's being spent on something other than education of regular kids in regular classrooms. But the people at the actual school level have no say in the spending of those funds. Many don't make it as far as their front door, and many of the ones that do are mandated to be spent on specific issues. Once again, it's the government and legislative system deciding they know better how to spend that money than the people running the actual school.

fast_eddie_72 wrote:

DILYSI Dave wrote: We are in agreement then that that is BS.

I can also concur that that specific issue should not be handled in that manner. It's BS. I would add, however, that I am not aware of any voucher program which would move 100% of the "stated" educational cost to the user of the voucher. The simple solution to that problem is to define the costs, and build the voucher program accordingly, not throw out all voucher programs.

If I could receive 25% of the "stated" local educational costs, my children's education budget would increase 500%. I'd have no problem with the school keeping whatever (reasonable) amount it takes to cover the costs incurred.

With no voucher program, it is currently THE OPPOSITE. I fund the school for services I do not receive, and am not allowed to participate in.

fast_eddie_72 wrote: I think it's the more "messed up" school districts that offer more choices- by demand. Denver Public is a mess too.

Don't think I can agree with you on that one. Unless your dropout rate is more than 52% (the rate locally), my district is probably worse than yours and offers no choices. No Magnet schools, no Charter, etc.

fast_eddie_72 wrote: Yes, you would have more options if the government subsidized the expense of private education. I could get a Ferrari if the government would subsidize the cost. There are choices we have that we elect not to peruse. Saying that the government should pay for it because I can’t, in my opinioin, isn’t a good answer.

I didn't say I CAN'T pay, nor did I say I WOULD accept vouchers.

I am ONLY saying we have a broken system that is severely overfunded and tremendously mismanaged and that the public schools would make themselves better if they were forced to compete with other educational systems which appear to be functioning better.

In truth, if we made the choice to continue home schooling, I would probably never accept vouchers if they were offered. They would come with too many strings attached which would limit my ability to educate my children in a manner which I think is appropriate, a decision I think many other private schools would be wise to heed.

Doesn't change the fact that if the option existed, the schools would have to prove that they could offer a better educational solution, so consumers could vote for them with their dollars.

SVreX wrote: I can also concur that that specific issue should not be handled in that manner. It's BS.

You know what's awesome- we've found one issue we all agree on. That's worth the entire, painful mess.

SVreX wrote: I would add, however, that I am not aware of any voucher program which would move 100% of the "stated" educational cost to the user of the voucher. The simple solution to that problem is to define the costs, and build the voucher program accordingly, not throw out all voucher programs.

Well, I think it would be a good idea to properly account for the costs. Take the mandated, additional costs and pay for them some other way. Don't pretend to be giving that money to the schools. In fact, I think when they legislate spending; they should have to provide funding. If that means they have to raise taxes, then they should have to raise them and look the voters in the eye when they do. Not just roll them into a budget that already is overextended and hope someone else figures it out down the road.

But, that doesn't change my primary problem with supporting subsidizing private education.

SVreX wrote: If I could receive 25% of the "stated" local educational costs, my children's education budget would increase 500%. I'd have no problem with the school keeping whatever (reasonable) amount it takes to cover the costs incurred.

Indeed you could. If I could get the money I spend on Social Security I am quite sure I could make more with it than I will get back. If I could take the money I pay for unemployment, I'd be worth more than I am today. I've never taken advantage of the program (thank God) and if I had that money back, I'd never need to.

But that's not how it works. If you want the money you spend on public education back, then we should get rid of public education all together. Otherwise, it is what it is. The examples I posted earlier in this thread- the people in the gated community pay for the police and their private security. The people opposed to the war in Iraq pay for it regardless. We may be able to make better decisions individually for our circumstance, but we have decided as a society that there are some decisions that we make as a group. Right now education is one of those. It's a reasonable position to hold that we should no longer do that. But it's not a reasonable position, in my opinion, to say we should keep it in place, but divert it's funding to private schooling.

SVreX wrote: With no voucher program, it is currently THE OPPOSITE. I fund the school for services I do not receive, and am not allowed to participate in.

You are allowed to participate in them. You just chose not to. That is your choice.

fast_eddie_72 wrote: I think it's the more "messed up" school districts that offer more choices- by demand. Denver Public is a mess too.

Don't think I can agree with you on that one. Unless your dropout rate is more than 52% (the rate locally), my district is probably worse than yours and offers no choices. No Magnet schools, no Charter, etc.

I dunno. Could be. That was just an aside. Not really the heart of the issue. Sounds like the schools where you are are really bad. We both agree you should have more choices. We don't seem agree on funding private choices with public funds with government subsidies.

fast_eddie_72 wrote: Real choice for everyone would be a choice of public schools that anyone can go to.

There is a great deal of foundational, doctrinal, and political influence behind that statement that I am not sure you understand.

The bottom line is, some people believe that the government determining what students should learn or be taught is a bad idea.

Public schools are not for everyone, and they are not required by law, which has been supported by the Supreme Court (as I have previously noted).

fast_eddie_72 wrote: But that's not how it works. If you want the money you spend on public education back, then we should get rid of public education all together. Otherwise, it is what it is.

I agree completely. Another in a series of kumbaya moments!

However, we both know that is not an option. Public education will never go away, so suggesting it as an option is theoretical pie-in-the-sky.

The reality is we have public education, and will always have public education. It's broken. How do we fix it?

Vouchers (or some other form of introducing legitimate competition) are a small step in balancing a completely out of balance system and introducing a form of accountability that consumers can understand.

fast_eddie_72 wrote:

SVreX wrote: Don't think I can agree with you on that one. Unless your dropout rate is more than 52% (the rate locally), my district is probably worse than yours and offers no choices. No Magnet schools, no Charter, etc.

I dunno. Could be. That was just an aside. Not really the heart of the issue. Sounds like the schools where you are are really bad. We both agree you should have more choices. We don't seem agree on funding private choices with public funds with government subsidies.

I incorrectly used the phrase "dropout rate". The 52% number I used is the rate of people who fail to graduate. For the record, the rate of people who fail to graduate in Denver is 23.1%, just so you have a point of reference that you might begin to see the extent of the problem in some other areas.

SVreX wrote: I am ONLY saying we have a broken system that is severely overfunded and tremendously mismanaged and that the public schools would make themselves better if they were forced to compete with other educational systems which appear to be functioning better.

We're spending a lot. I agree. But when you say mismanaged, mismanaged by whom? We keep blaming the schools, but as I have outlined, they're not making many of the decisions. We need to remove those costs from the equation if we want an objective look at school costs. As I showed, classroom spending is going down, not up. That is the problem. And since those "other costs” are mandated, if you pull funding for vouchers, there’s only one place it can come from- the classroom spending we all seem to agree is the most important part.

Now, you accused me earlier of ignoring your points. Okay, I’m going to turn that around on you. I’ve clearly outlined at least some of the costs the public system has to carry that the private school does not. But you keep saying they should compete. I don’t think your addressing my point that it’s not fair competition if they’re not playing by the same rules. I’ve laid out many of those programs specifically several times. I'm pretty sure someone who knows more about it than me would be able to name many others. If you can’t find them in my earlier posts, I’ll post them for you again.

To break it down in a bite size chunk- that worked well with the busing issue- let’s take one more specific issue. Curriculum and Testing. It really is one issue. Public schools must teach the mandated curriculum and are “held accountable” through testing. That’s the government solution to improving education. We’ve been doing it for a while. Anyone think the schools have improved?

The actual educators tell us that the testing is hindering their ability to teach kids. But since, in many cases, their funding, and at least here in Denver, the teacher salary, is tied directly to performance on the test, they have to teach the mandated curriculum and they have no choice but to participate in the tests.

Private schools, by contrast, have no such constraint. They chose a curriculum that they deem best for their students. They participate in much of the testing, but have no funding tied to it. They are not "heald accountable" in this way. And yet, as you have pointed out, they outperform public schools on the tests. Doesn’t that show that the testing model is flawed? Shouldn’t we copy the more successful system in all schools? Shouldn’t we allow the educator at the school and in the classroom to educate the students in the manner they deem most effective?

So can we agree that it’s not fair competition if one school has a government mandated curriculum and testing program while the other school does not?

fast_eddie_72 wrote: Private schools, by contrast, have no such constraint. They chose a curriculum that they deem best for their students. They participate in much of the testing, but have no funding tied to it. They are *not* "heald accountable" in this way. And yet, as you have pointed out, they outperform public schools on the tests. Doesn’t that show that the testing model is flawed? Shouldn’t we copy the more successful system in all schools? Shouldn’t we allow the educator at the school and in the classroom to educate the students in the manner they deem most effective? So can we agree that it’s not fair competition if one school has a government mandated curriculum and testing program while the other school does not?

Yes. That is correct.

But that is also EXACTLY why public school is not required for students.

The public schools are functioning within the laws relative to them. The private schools are functioning within the laws relative to them. One system is working better than the other. Looks like the laws should be changed.

But public systems are, and always will be strapped with red tape. That's the nature of the beast. And it's why I would probably not accept public funds for my private home school.

Are you suggesting private schools should have to conform to all the laws relative to public schools? Then they'd BE public schools, and the Supreme Court rulings affirming that public education is not a requirement would be nullified.

That's a little like suggesting a car driver should have to adhere to all the laws related to commercially licensed truck drivers. Just because they use the same road, does not mean the same laws apply to them.

SVreX wrote: I incorrectly used the phrase "dropout rate". The 52% number I used is the rate of people who fail to graduate. For the record, the rate of people who fail to graduate in Denver is 23.1%, just so you have a point of reference that you might begin to see the extent of the problem in some other areas.

It could be 100% and it wouldn't change anything. Here's a question - are there private schools where you are? What percentage of their students graduate? If, hypothetically, those students had to go to the public school (I'm not suggesting they should) would the figure for the public school get better? If everyone was allowed to pull their student from the public school and put them in the private school, with the entire cost subsidized by the government, would the situation at the public school improve or get worse?

Think about it this way- let’s assume there is a given number of kids, for whatever reason, who will never graduate. So think of that as one group of kids. What percentage of that group goes to the public school? I would suggest that it is very nearly 100%. The public school has to take them, and, let’s be honest; it’s unlikely they’d be in that position if their parents cared enough to put them in private school. That decision to move them to private school would almost certainly come along with a host of other decisions that benefit the child. Those decisions made over the course of a lifetime are unlikely to result in a student who has no chance of graduation.

Government subsidies are great for private schools and the families that can take advantage of them. But it comes at the expense of the public schools. If we allowed the public school to remove the most problematic students, as private schools can, or built a system where they were not compelled to attend in the first place, as is the case with private schools, or at the very least allowed them to drop the test scores and graduation statistics of students who do not regularly attend, I suspect the situation would be much better.

SVreX wrote: Yes. That is correct. But that is also EXACTLY why public school is not required for students. The public schools are functioning within the laws relative to them. The private schools are functioning within the laws relative to them. One system is working better than the other. Looks like the laws should be changed.

That's it. That's exactly what I've been saying. We are in total agreement. It is the laws and government intrusion that is in large part the problem.

SVreX wrote: But public systems are, and always will be strapped with red tape. That's the nature of the beast. And it's why I would probably not accept public funds for my private home school. Are you suggesting private schools should have to conform to all the laws relative to public schools? Then they'd BE public schools, and the Supreme Court rulings affirming that public education is not a requirement would be nullified.

Nooooooo! That would be terrible. In fact, I said earlier, people who support private schools should be very suspect of allowing public funds to go to private schools. Imagine if we greatly increased the number of students spending tax money on private schools. How long do you think it would take for them to be in the same position? Part of what makes private schools work right now is that they're private. If they become publicly funded, they won't be anymore. They are able to get around the problems we're talking about. Let's figure out how to let the public schools get around them as well.

SVreX wrote: That's a little like suggesting a car driver should have to adhere to all the laws related to commercially licensed truck drivers. Just because they use the same road, does not mean the same laws apply to them.

Exactly. What needs to change, as you said above, is the laws.

Here’s the thing. Say we make vouchers available to everyone and they cover the entire cost of private education. What then? Say you’re the guy who runs the public school. You still have to run the busses, provide the special education programs, do the testing etc. If you took all the money, how is it going to get done? We’re not there yet, but that’s the squeeze we’re putting on the local schools. We pass all kinds of laws but not the funding to pay for them. We need to do one or the other. Pay for the programs, or remove the laws.

Look at this deal here in Denver (is it like this everywhere?) You’re a teacher. Say you’re a crappy one. Maybe you used to care, but years of kids who have no interest in learning has sapped your spirit. You just don’t care. So the kids come to school. You don’t even try to teach them anymore. They do badly on the test. You don’t get a raise. Is that holding the schools accountable as it claims to? Nope. The union won’t allow you to get fired- you’re on tenure. And if you phone it in for ten more years, you get a sweet retirement plan.

Now layer vouchers on top of that. Even fewer kids at the public school who want to learn. The situation above- wouldn’t there be even more “teachers” like that? Wouldn't we "waste" more money on them? Wouldn’t it make a lot more sense to do something about the students who don’t want to learn than to pay for TWO education systems- one that works and one that doesn't?

And as far as the funding, what if we created a system where we pay for classroom education out of one fund and “everything else” out of another. Then at least we would have a real idea what the education costs and how much is “other things”. If, then, we wanted to go through the other things line by line, we could. What we’re doing now is manipulating the numbers to make it look like the people at the school are making bad decisions- calling it “per pupil” spending when the school has been given no choice and much of the money isn’t spent on any “pupil” at all.

The figure for the public school would get better, but not by a ratio that is disproportionate to the rest of the country.

In other words, it's irrelevant. We don't have a higher incidence of private school attendees making the problem worse than other areas have. We have schools that suck, and honestly the private ones do too, just not quite as badly.

It is a regional systemic educational problem, not a mathematical anomaly.

But the politics of the situation are greatly influenced by national public debate. If one party makes the universal blanket statement "Vouchers are bad", the party loyalists will all fall in line, regardless of the outcome.

Additionally, if the laws at the national level guide the requirements (ie: prohibit vouchers), the local decision makers are bound by whatever the law is. So, it is imposed by fiat on all municipalities equally nationally, while some municipalities are dealing with significantly different issues, and therefore have significantly different outcomes.

"Public" isn't public at all- it is inherently political in nature. Your public and my public are not the same. I am in support of making tools (such as vouchers) available for local leadership to choose whether to utilize in their local communities as they see fit, not dogmatic rule by fiat on the national level.

fast_eddie_72 wrote: And as far as the funding, what if we created a system where we pay for classroom education out of one fund and “everything else” out of another. Then at least we would have a real idea what the education costs and how much is “other things”. If, then, we wanted to go through the other things line by line, we could. What we’re doing now is manipulating the numbers to make it look like the people at the school are making bad decisions- calling it “per pupil” spending when the school has been given no choice and much of the money isn’t spent on any “pupil” at all.

That's true, but it isn't "we" that are reporting the numbers such as "cost per pupil", ITS THE SCHOOL SYSTEMS.

It is the responsibility of the local Superintendent of Schools to do such reporting.

So, for years they've cooked the books to try to make it appear like they offer more than they do for less than it costs. Along comes a different idea (like vouchers) which would hold their feet to the fire, and they realize, "Oh crap. Now it's in our best interest to make everything look like it is more expensive instead of less".

Standardize the accounting methods, sure. Manage the funds better, of course. Define which cost are real "cost per pupil" and which are not, obviously. Then allow only a percentage of the funds (relevant to the educational process, not the overhead) to be diverted, fine.

But I'm not gonna let the elected School Superintendent (a politician) off the hook because his method of cooking the books is no longer beneficial to him. Tough E36 M3.

Here's the CATO Institute link again, because I think you missed it. Note the video halfway down the page.

CATO Institute Policy Analysis

SVreX wrote: "Public" isn't public at all- it is inherently political in nature. Your public and my public are not the same. I am in support of making tools (such as vouchers) available for local leadership to choose whether to utilize in their local communities as they see fit, not dogmatic rule by fiat on the national level.

Okay, well hang on. This is different.

First off, yes, your public and my public are different and that's why schools are supposed to be run locally. But we layer more and more federal regulation on top of them to "fix" them. And each layer makes it worse. Now you suggest that layering just one more bit of legislation will make it better. I would suggest history says otherwise.

But that above is another idea - making the vouchers available to "local leadership". I don't know who, exactly, you mean. But I'm interested to hear. When you say "vouchers" I assume you mean government subsidy given directly to parents to pay for their children's education. But allowing local government more control over how education fund are spent is a right on target in my opinion. Even more so if those local leaders decide to stay the hell out of it and let the educators decide how to educate.

SVreX wrote: Standardize the accounting methods, sure. Manage the funds better, of course. Define which cost are real "cost per pupil" and which are not, obviously. Then allow only a percentage of the funds (relevant to the educational process, not the overhead) to be diverted, fine.

But again, I don't think you've addressed this. Forgive me if you have. You're making the assumption that it is appropriate for any public funds to be, as you say, diverted to private education. What is the justification for that? How can paying for two education systems with tax money be better and cost less? And why is it even a good idea in the first place? And again my point about turning private schools into public schools. If we don't do anything about the legal requirements that are hurting public schools, but then spend more and more on private schools, how long do you think it will take for people to bring cases to court demanding that the private school, since it is now being supported with tax money, provide resources for the deaf, and resources for the retarded, and resources for the "learning disabled", and programs to help kids who are on drugs, and day care after school programs for workinig parents, etc. etc. etc. ??

Wouldn't it make more sense to remove those programs from the school all together? If we think after school programs are something we want to pay for with public funds, great. But do it outside of "school funding". If we think our community needs a school for the deaf, that's fantastic. But do it outside of "school funding". If we think there should be resources for kids on drugs, I think that's a great idea. But why does it have to be at the school and why would it be called "education spending"?

fast_eddie_72 wrote: We're spending a lot. I agree. But when you say mismanaged, mismanaged by whom? We keep blaming the schools, but as I have outlined, they're not making many of the decisions. We need to remove those costs from the equation if we want an objective look at school costs. As I showed, classroom spending is going down, not up. That is the problem. And since those "other costs” are mandated, if you pull funding for vouchers, there’s only one place it can come from- the classroom spending we all seem to agree is the most important part.

Mismanaged EVERYWHERE. As an example - my wife is a teacher. Her school just bought 5 of those stupid touch screen TV things that the weatherman and political pundits on CNN like to use. IIRC they went for $10k each. This is the same school system that is bitching because they are having to lay off teachers and begging for SPLOST money. But because the teacher salary fund is handled at the county and the misc. electronic bullE36 M3 fund is handled at the school, they have over-full classrooms with stupid electronic whiteboards. Same school, example 2 - A couple of years back they finished a huge 3 story addition to the school that would double it's occupancy level. The same month it was completed, they re-districted, taking about 40% of the student away from this school. They spent 6.2 million on an addition that has been sitting nearly vacant for 3 years now. But they still complain about not having money.

These are just small examples from one single school. That level of incompetance / corruption exists at all levels.

I would love for the public schools to be able to be fixed. But...
1. I'm not sure it's possible. The kind of changes you are advocating are at least as pie-in-the-sky as the ones I am advocating.
2. Even if it's possible, it takes time, and I don't want any more kids to suffer a broken system than have to.

DILYSI Dave wrote: Mismanaged EVERYWHERE. As an example - my wife is a teacher. Her school just bought 5 of those stupid touch screen TV things that the weatherman and political pundits on CNN like to use. IIRC they went for $10k each.

I'm not saying, because I don't know. The school my wife works at bought something similar. I know in that case it was a technology grant. It wasn't paid for with tax money. And the grant was specifically offered for that technology. They couldn't spend it on something else.