Education

In reply to fast_eddie_72:

I don't disagree with the basic premise that bankrupting the school system isn't the solution. I just think the school system is too quick to blame others (parents, funding, etc...) for not succeeding. In the end, the schools work for the public and the public wants results for very little money. If the schools don't provide it, the public will change the system and hire someone else.

MrJoshua wrote: In reply to fast_eddie_72: I don't disagree with the basic premise that bankrupting the school system isn't the solution. I just think the school system is too quick to blame others (parents, funding, etc...) for not succeeding. In the end, the schools work for the public and the public wants results for very little money. If the schools don't provide it, the public will change the system and hire someone else.

Yeah, I think we agree more than we disagree. Sorry if I was defensive earlier. I do that sometimes. This has been a really great conversation. I'll try to pipe down a bit and see if we can keep it on track.

I did look at the article again. I believe the first figures were referring to the schools included in the study they were citing at that point in the article. The second figure looks to be referring to a larger group- "Washington region's public schools" which I assume includes schools that weren't part of the study. It certainly could have presented the information more clearly, though. I had to really look at it to figure that out.

Writer must have gone to public school. lol

In reply to fast_eddie_72:

We are arguing about how to make education better. That's a heck of a lot better than not giving a damn.

Interesting Video on Revolutionizing Schooling

I'll just leave this right here...

And as far as I am concerned, Australia has public education done correctly for grade schoolers. I firmly believe that kids should be in schools that are tailored to their skills/likes/wants/desires if possible (technical kids should go to technical grade school for instance).

Just yesterday, I was asked to assemble/program this circuit board in BASIC. After getting the kit, I realized it was a teaching module for school; how cool is that? And why did I never get to learn to program basic as a kid? I spent days upon days with html, but the teachers were TERRIBLE and we never did anything like we should have. I could have been programming code in C (any of its forms) by the time I was out of high school no sweat, no questions asked (and also many other programming languages, but you get what I mean).

I know that if I ever have kids, they will be going to a private school in Canuckland so they get these opportunities.

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.

Don't get me wrong I worked my ass off in high school and I got full tuition so I am going to be leaving college with very very little debt but I am just saying any person who is smart enough for college should be able to go.

93EXCivic wrote: In reply to Dr. Hess: Ok but you can't say cutting teaching jobs and raising tution is helping anyone. I mean hardly anyone can afford college now.

... And, the resulting substandard primary education means that institutes of higher learning simply lower their standards to maintain enrollment. Higher cost, lower standards.

Those earlier numbers blow my mind.

$10,100? $20,000? PER STUDENT??

I believe the national average is $10,000.

Home schooled students average about $500, and out-perform public and private schooled students in almost every measurable way.

I know. The teacher is not paid. OK, add a $40,000 salary divided by 25 kids in the class. That would be $1600. Add some administrators and building (divided by the whole student body). You get the picture.

Why the difference? Student-teacher ratio? Parental involvement? Bureaucracy? I don't really know.

One thing is for certain... More money does NOT mean a better education. That is an untruth most of us sheople have simply bought hook, line, and sinker.

Otto Maddox wrote: This isn't directed at anybody in particular but I've never understood the adding the cost of housing to the cost of college. People regularly refer to room and board. Do they figure they won't need food or a place to live from the age of 18-22 if they skip college? Sure they might be able to mooch off their parents, but the same holds true for going to college. Most kids have a college within commuting distance from their parents' house.

In some areas, the college housing is bordering on profiteering. Where I went to college (IUP, western PA) was a very small town. In fact, the 12,000-student college nearly doubled the town's population and it was given its own zip code. Small, depressed, western PA town + a doubling of the housing demand = higher than normal housing prices. Fortunately, the town of Indiana, PA means the prices were still reasonable, but compared to the local norms they were very high. College housing is often dramatically higher than A) living with mom and dad, and B) skipping college and choosing a cheap place to live. Had I skipped college, my room and board would have been crazy cheaper than had I gone to college.

So, let's say I am a dirt-poor chicken farmer's son from East Texas. I act in the school plays and also play a mean linebacker for the football team. My dream is to produce and direct movies. To that end, I have immersed myself in learning the lingo, the screenwriting, the acting, and have even saved up the money (by selling eggs) to travel to Cannes for the film festival instead of going to Cancun for spring break with my football buddies. I use my experience to produce a wonderfully crafted 30-minute short film that gets noticed by some colleges.

So, I get some scholarship offers:

1) NYU offers me a tuition scholarship for the film school. A free $190,000 education that requires finding a $1700/mo apartment and expensive public transportation.
2) UCLA offers me a tuition scholarship for their film school. A free $110,000 education that requires a $1200/mo apartment and pathetic public transportation that requires purchasing, registering, smogging, insuring, and fueling a car with CA legendary vehicle ownership costs. 3) Texas A&M offers me a full ride in the Chicken Sciences college and a bench spot on the football team. A free $60,000 education with no room and board costs, I can use daddy's Dodge, and if I don't blow out my knee while the pro scouts are watching, I will at least have a degree in chicken farming.
4) The local community college offers an associate's degree in diesel mechanics. I can live at home and train to enter the exciting and high-demand world of diesel engine repair.

On the one hand, you can be financially miserable chasing your life's dream, or you can be emotionally miserable chasing a financial easy street for four years. Which one will come back and bite you in the ass? It depends on what type of person you are. To choose the college you attend based solely on room and board isn't the issue, its whether or not the total cost of where you are now versus where you would be if you A) pursued your dreams in college, or B) went to a college based solely on the financial advantage.

If college is too expensive, if you can't recoup its cost in a reasonable amount of time after you graduate, then change your plans. Live at home, get a part-time job, join ROTC, go to junior college, take only a few classes at a time or failing all else, skip college and get a job. I went through this whole process over 20 years ago and it worked out fine for me. It just required a lot of hard work and planning. Is that too harsh?

No. Its harsh, but not too harsh. I could afford college. I went to a state university where tuition and housing were cheap, but it had a good fine arts department. I was right smack in the middle of the bell curve. The extreme left side of the bell curve would argue that John Q. Ghetto who is a street-living drug dealer/prodigal musician has the same right to choose his education as John Q. Rockefeller who excels at nothing but wants a document saying he's smart. The extreme right would respond more like you did.

What was that?

Curtis73, are you arguing with yourself??

HiTempguy wrote: Interesting Video on Revolutionizing Schooling

That's a really neat video and he makes an outstanding point. Thanks for sharing that!

SVreX wrote: Those earlier numbers blow my mind. $10,100? $20,000? PER STUDENT?? I believe the national average is $10,000. Home schooled students average about $500, and out-perform public and private schooled students in almost every measurable way.

Respectfully, don't you think that's a little misleading? I know you address some of this later in your post. Not picking a fight. But let me state it in my own way. A School needs a building and transportation and heat and a staff - janitors, bathrooms, toilet paper, new roof, new windows. That's before you even get to books, pencils, paper etc to teach with. A house needs a lot of that too, but when you talk about the cost of home schooling none of that is included.

But the really big cost that is left out is the income of the parent who stays home to do the home schooling. Super if you can afford it. Most can't. So add all the costs above and a full time salary. So what's that? This:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Household_income_in_the_United_States

Says $45,400 for someone with an undergraduate degree. I think a legitimate case can be made that a one on one full time teacher with a student ratio of one is very, very expensive indeed. Say, what, $75,000? Little wonder it is more effective.

SVreX wrote: One thing is for certain... More money does NOT mean a better education. That is an untruth most of us sheople have simply bought hook, line, and sinker.

I'm not sure that is for certain. I certainly would agree that more money alone won't solve the problem, but I'll be surprised if the solution, whatever it is, doesn't cost more than we're spending now. But I would offer this thought- you may believe that more money does not mean a better education. I would suggest that less money certainly makes less likely.

SVreX wrote: What was that? Curtis73, are you arguing with yourself??

Uh, no...

My browser suddenly decided that the "enter" key meant "publish your half-completed post" instead of "go to the next line."

Done editing, please enjoy.

fast_eddie_72 wrote: I'm not sure that is for certain. I certainly would agree that more money alone won't solve the problem, but I'll be surprised if the solution, whatever it is, doesn't cost more than we're spending now. But I would offer this thought- you may believe that more money does not mean a better education. I would suggest that less money certainly makes less likely.

Both of your conclusions would make sense... if we already didn't spend more than most of the successful systems we're measuring ourselves against and had we not already dramatically increased spending.

We've tried the "spending more money" without making other more critical changes and we've continued to get worse.

http://education-portal.com/articles/Public_Education_Spending_Has_Doubled_in_the_Last_15_Years.html

http://www2.ed.gov/about/overview/fed/10facts/edlite-chart.html#1

So it's not difficult to say that both of your conclusions have been proven wrong in actual practice... or rather that your otherwise logical conclusions have been negated due to other overriding factors.

fast_eddie_72 wrote: Respectfully, don't you think that's a little misleading? ... But the really big cost that is left out is the income of the parent who stays home to do the home schooling... I think a legitimate case can be made that a one on one full time teacher with a student ratio of one is very, very expensive indeed. Say, what, $75,000? Little wonder it is more effective.

No. I do not think it is misleading at all. In fact, I confessed the incongruity.

I do, however, find your math counterpoint misleading (and don't take it personally- I've heard it many times before).

The question at hand is not how much an individual family is sacrificing (which is, of course, what you are addressing when you include the "lost income" of 1 family member and divide it by the number of kids they have). The question is, "What is the legitimate cost of an education, and how much should it be?". I would therefore suggest that my method is more legit (adding the costs of a school and staff to the most basic cost per student) then the method you have suggested (adding the most inventive and expensive cost imaginable to each individual student, in order to disprove the success rate).

Let's be honest, neither one is very accurate. That's not my point.

My point is that $10,000 per student is absolutely absurd, and it buys us very little in terms of a quality education.

A "fair" comparison would include the cost of buildings and such, but it would be divided by the thousands of students who attend over the life of the building (still very little per student). It would also not include things like building costs if they are paid for out of SPLOST funds, etc. etc.

On the other side, the cost of a home education should certainly include something for the cost of the teacher. But how would you account for the fact that there are virtually ZERO difference in measurable performance from home schooled students in families with 2 children vs. families with 13 children. The real cost of the teacher is definitely not $45,000 for one student.

The question is not the cost of the teacher. The question is the cost of the education. Homeschoolers prove that quality education can be offered for less than a few thousand per student INCLUDING the cost of the teacher. Public schools cost more than 3 times that, and keep trying to make the argument that more money will equal a better education.

There is NO SUCH correlation.

I have a novel idea. How about letting the kids that don't want to or can't pass fail. Rather than dragging the entire system down to the lowest common denominator let the stars rise and the rest of them fail as they should. Not everyone needs to be a rocket scientist. Someone needs to sweep the floor. My eldest didn't want to go to college and I didn't pressure him to. He's a doer not a thinker. It's not that he isn't smart, he just didn't want to stay in school another 4 years. My daughter never had a doubt about going. With that in mind she worked her butt off and has a full ride including room and board. Granted it isn't at an ivy league school, but it's a good instate school. As cold as it sounds some children need to be left behind.

As far as teachers unions are concerned. If they ever protect a teacher's job that isn't doing the job they have out grown their usefulness. Tenure is just as bad. Complacent teachers are worse than no teachers.

ADD/ADHD is a familiar topic around the Toyman house. All of my kids have been diagnosed with it at one time or the other. I had it as a kid and probably still do. It isn't the end of the world. I have a son on Concerta. Without it he wouldn't be in school. With it it's a chore to get him to keep his grades up. I or my wife spend countless hours keeping him on task every week. It's one of those things you learn to live with.

School funding is a club that politicians use to beat the gullible into paying higher taxes. Any politician that cuts school funding before cutting everything else in the budget first is an idiot. But then most of them are. Parents that expect the schools to be the main source of education for their children aren't any better. Education of the child is the parents responsibility. The school system can supply the information, but it is the parents job to see to it that it is learned. If all the children are failing, blame the schools, if it is just a few, blame the parents. Throwing money at it won't fix it. It never has, it never will. This is a societal problem. Until you can figure out how to get the students and the parents to realize the importance of education money won't fix it.

wcelliot wrote: So it's not difficult to say that both of your conclusions have been proven wrong in actual practice... or rather that your otherwise logical conclusions have been negated due to other overriding factors.

It's an interesting point. We are spending more, to be sure. But I would suggest we aren't spending more on education. There are a world of social issues that are costing our schools money. I don't have an offhand command of all the issues, so I wanted to track down a better source than me just trying to work it out on my own. I found this really interesting letter from a former school administrator.

Give it a read. I bet we agree on a lot of the points Mr. LoVette makes.

http://www.questia.com/googleScholar.qst;jsessionid=B2956158928972B32A0DDFC0F0F25B1B.inst2_1a?docId=5001652480

I think it may be unfair to say we've really given "more money to the schools". We've spent more, but how much of it has gone to the schools? At the same time, we've introduced all kinds of requirements for them to meet and all kinds of outside social issues for them to face. We've legislated much of that money go toward things other than education or even spending in the actual public schools.

This is a critical chart from one of my links.

This is in CONSTANT DOLLARS. The fact that at the beginning of the chart the US was thought to have one of the best primary/secondary education systems in the world while at the end of the chart we are an also-ran should be very informative.

All of the parameters being discussed as "critical" (cost of the necessary faciltiies, etc) should be about the same (constant dollars) at each end of the chart.

So if those costs have remained constant (or should have remained constant), one must ask "then what changed"? How did we manage to simultaneously spend so much more money (in constant dollars) whiel destroying our education system? The data would seem to prove that the more money we spent, the worse education got... completely counter to what one would logically expect.

Obviously factors other than money are primary here... and until those are fixed, it appears that more money would continue to make the situation worse, not better.

SVreX wrote: Let's be honest, neither one is very accurate. That's not my point.

Well, we agree on that.

Here's the thing, when you say $10,000 per student is absurd, you're making it out like we're dolling out ten grand on each student. That's just not the case. We may be spending $10 grand, but we're not spending it on the student. And when I say that, I mean more than the buildings and the buses.

I think it's a lot more complicated than any of us are making it out to be. Here's one just as an example. School vouchers. When we talk about "cost of education" we have to remember, 20 years ago, the money for public education went to public schools. All of it. Now a lot of it goes to private schools. You get a school voucher and take your kid somewhere else. So what did that do? We still spent the money, but it didn't go to the public school. At the same time, one more parent who cared about their kid's education gave up on the public school. That's one less PTA member. One less dad baking cookies for the bake sale. One less family that may have a few bucks to buy the cookies at the bake sale. Do that 100 times and there aren't a lot of parents left who can make a real impact on the quality of the school. So at the same time the percentage of students who come from homes where the parents couldn't care less gets higher. So more time spent breaking up fights, or busting kids selling drugs, or trying to console some half decent kid who is afraid he's going to get beaten up at lunch. Which means less time teaching.

fast_eddie_72 wrote: I think it may be unfair to say we've really given "more money to the schools". We've spent more, but how much of it has gone to the schools? At the same time, we've introduced all kinds of requirements for them to meet and all kinds of outside social issues for them to face. We've legislated much of that money go toward things other than education or even spending in the actual public schools.

And what sorts of people do you think are responsible for that? The type that agree with you that we should spend even MORE money on education or the type that think that maybe more money is part of the problem instead of part of the cure.

If you have a gambling problem and can't pay your rent, don't come to me making the case that if I give you just a little more money you'll be able to solve your problem by gambling even more... that's exactly the case you're making here.

wcelliot wrote: So if those costs have remained constant (or should have remained constant), one must ask "then what changed"? How did we manage to simultaneously spend so much more money (in constant dollars) while destroying our education system?

Read the link I posted above if you get a minute. I think it answers that question to some degree.

I read the link. The same people wanting more money are the same people responsible for each of the items he lists... the same people you want to give MORE money to.

Besides, the article is dishonest. He completely ignores the dramatic increase in administration, pay, and benefits... items which I bet dwarf the items he lists.

One other note...

I don't think (generally) the cost of buildings is included in the quoted cost of education. Those are capital, and should be calculated completely differently.

In Washington DC, when ALL of the costs, including capital, etc. is included the costs jump from $8322 per student to $24,600 per student.

Washington Post article

Maybe home schoolers aren't the only ones who don't count their houses...

wcelliot wrote: And what sorts of people do you think are responsible for that? The type that agree with you that we should spend even MORE money on education or the type that think that maybe more money is part of the problem instead of part of the cure.

I don't really care what sorts of people are responsible for it. It is what it is.

I think you're missing my point. I don't care "what sorts of people" win or lose or get to use it as a campaign point. I just want to see the schools get better. You can run down the "sorts of people" responsible if you like. That's fine with me. But the facts remain.

Now, to answer your question, there's equal blame to be shared. I assume the "sorts of people" you're talking about are the more liberally minded members of our nation. Yes, I'd say it's likely that issues like bilingual education could be "blamed" on "them" if you like. But, on the other side of the coin, look at issues like school vouchers. I think it's fair to say the "blame" for that rests on the more conservative side of the coin.

So? What difference does it make? Decisions are made that have financial implications. Demanding the decisions be made but refusing to pay for them is insanity. But even that wasn't my point. My only point was the assertion that we're spending more on public education is not entirely true. We're spending more money, no doubt. But we're not spending it on our students. So to draw the conclusion "we tried that" isn't really accurate.

If you read my loooong post a page or two back, you'll see, I think, we're kinda on the same page. Kid needs bilingual education? Personally I think we should provide that. But not at the regular public school. Kid has a drug problem? I think we should try to help. But not at the regular public school. Kid doesn't show up? Our society should make an effort to help him, but I don't suppose we really need him at the regular public school either.

We're on the same page- there are bigger issues that are causing the problem. Until we fix them the schools won't get better. Right now we're trying to fix all the problems with the same old schools. And it's not working. I say separate the other problems out and let the schools get back to the business of teaching kids who have a shot at learning something. I think you can probably agree with me that far can't you? Where we go from there might be different. I don't think we can take the rest an cut them loose. I think we need to give them as good a shot as we can. Again, it's not their fault they were born to the wrong family. But, to what degree we help, well, we could probably hash out some kind of agreement.

Point is, get the "other issues" off the school's plate. Let the educators get back to education. Let the Police and the Social Workers deal with crime and messed up families.

wcelliot wrote: Besides, the article is dishonest. He completely ignores the dramatic increase in administration, pay, and benefits... items which I bet dwarf the items he lists.

Maybe. I'd take a look at some numbers if you can find some. One thing I bet we agree on - the teacher's unions aren't helping anything.