Education

wcelliot wrote: 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.

Yes, here we go. 100% agree that factors other than money are the primary problem. They need to be addressed and, as I said above, not at the school.

I would ask you to defend the last part. You seem to be painting that pretty black and white. So just to make the point, are you saying that if we doubled the budget for public education tomorrow that you believe that one act alone will make the schools worse? I'm not trying to put words in your mouth. If you don't believe that, just say so.

But if you do believe that, could you take a shot at describing the mechanism by which that would happen?

Take a look at the video halfway down the page on this link:

Schools deceptively routinely low-ball

Stated education numbers are not actual education costs, and routinely leave out things like capital expense and debt service.

fast_eddie_72 wrote:

wcelliot wrote: 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.

Factually incorrect. That system IS public education. We've allowed it to be. As long as those running the system are allowed to keep the system unchanged then we HAVE spent more money on that system and there is no reason to believe that spending more would change anything. So your position is negated by actual history and your conclusion that we necessarily need to spend more is simiarly flawed. Logically, we would have to radically change the system (which has soaked up more than a 3x increase in spending) to improve the education to our students. Break the system and you can get better education for signicantly less money, not more. If you are gambling the rent money away, giving you more money still doesn't pay the rent. You have to break the gambling habit before money gets to the rent. You are so intent on paying the rent that you're missing this critical point. As long as leftists (not liberals...opposite end of the spectrum) are running things, nothing changes. this is how every leftist program works... always has, always will.

fast_eddie_72 wrote: So just to make the point, are you saying that if we doubled the budget for public education tomorrow that you believe that one act alone will make the schools worse?

No. I am saying that there is no evidence it would make the education better, and there is proof that a better education can be had with less money.

Therefore, the assumption that there is a link between money spent and educational quality is false.

fast_eddie_72 wrote:

wcelliot wrote: 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.

I would ask you to defend the last part. You seem to be painting that pretty black and white. So just to make the point, are you saying that if we doubled the budget for public education tomorrow that you believe that one act alone will make the schools worse? I'm not trying to put words in your mouth. If you don't believe that, just say so. But if you do believe that, could you take a shot at describing the mechanism by which that would happen?

Easy. I'm just looking at the numbers. Pretty clear. (That's the typical leftist argument anyway)

Of course correlation doesn't equal causation, but given the data it's certainly more reasonable to say that more money would be more likely to make matters worse rather than better. Why? You yourself have made the case that the extra money isn't getting to the classroom.... that means it's feeding and growing the bureacracy... which is making matters worse, not better. Even if only part of the extra money feeds the bureacracy, the net result is likely negative (again given the past 40 years of data). Those charts are really damning...

Just looking around on the google:

"California schools got more money from 2003 to 2009 but spent a smaller share of their budgets on students, a study has found."

http://www.pe.com/localnews/stories/PE_News_Local_D_schoolspend10.30b1ac0.html

"According to 2003-04 funding figures released at a legislative committee meeting Tuesday, only 23 out of 301 districts in Kansas spent 65 percent or more on what federal standards consider instructional spending -- mainly teacher pay and classroom supplies."

http://www.redorbit.com/news/education/219233/kansas_schools_retreat_from_65_percent_classroom_spending_target/

65%?! So they were only trying to spend "only" 35% on all the other crap and couldn't even do that? Seems like this is the problem, and that's in Kansas. I'm guessing many of the issues like bilingual education are much smaller there.

"Study Finds Education Spending Increased While Classroom Spending Declined "

http://www.calchamber.com/Headlines/Pages/02012011-StudyFindsEducationSpendingIncreasedWhileClassroomSpendingDeclined.aspx

"AZ audit: Classroom spending is at low point" http://www.educationnews.org/educationnewstoday/63002.html

There's pages and pages of this.

fast_eddie_72 wrote:

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.

According to California numbers, about 85 percent of the state’s $66 billion in K–12 education expenditures is devoted to personnel, including more than 300,000 teacher salaries and benefits.

You can't get 300% increase in expenditures on 15% of the expense.

Again, constant dollars.

Bill

fast_eddie_72 wrote: Just looking around on the google: "California schools got more money from 2003 to 2009 but spent a smaller share of their budgets on students, a study has found." http://www.pe.com/localnews/stories/PE_News_Local_D_schoolspend10.30b1ac0.html "According to 2003-04 funding figures released at a legislative committee meeting Tuesday, only 23 out of 301 districts in Kansas spent 65 percent or more on what federal standards consider instructional spending -- mainly teacher pay and classroom supplies." http://www.redorbit.com/news/education/219233/kansas_schools_retreat_from_65_percent_classroom_spending_target/ 65%?! So they were only trying to spend "only" 35% on all the other crap and couldn't even do that? Seems like this is the problem, and that's in Kansas. I'm guessing many of the issues like bilingual education are much smaller there. "Study Finds Education Spending Increased While Classroom Spending Declined " http://www.calchamber.com/Headlines/Pages/02012011-StudyFindsEducationSpendingIncreasedWhileClassroomSpendingDeclined.aspx "AZ audit: Classroom spending is at low point" http://www.educationnews.org/educationnewstoday/63002.html There's pages and pages of this.

Excellent. You have clearly proven that the issue is the system and how it spends money versus the issue being money itself... exactly my point. So how in the world could your conclusion be "spend more money"?

wcelliot wrote: Easy. I'm just looking at the numbers. Pretty clear. (That's the typical leftist argument anyway)

Well, I gave it a good shot. I've tried time and again to find common ground with you. Clearly you're more interested in shooting at the "leftists" than discussing education and how it might be improved.

Question. Education in America better or worse since 1994? You may recall, Republicans gained a majority in the House for the first time since 1954 and have held it since with the brief exception of the last few years. So, clearly, that's why education is worse. Hey, just looking at the numbers. Pretty clear.

Just pokin' you on the way out. Glad you have it all figured out. Wish I did. Looks like a pretty substantial problem with no easy answers from my chair.

I think eddie's point is that there are a lot of thing to spend money on that aren't directly education. I agree.

But most of those links I've posted indicate that most of those "other" expenses are not included in the cost-per-student analysis.

Doesn't matter. The cost per student is too much. With or without the "other" stuff.

I like 2011 American better than 1994. We have high-speed internet, 30 Rock, and the Aston Martin Vantage.

wcelliot wrote: Excellent. You have clearly proven that the issue is the system and how it spends money versus the issue being money itself... exactly my point. So how in the world could your conclusion be "spend more money"?

1. That's MY point. If you would pay attention, I've been trying very hard to AGREE WITH YOU. The key words being "how it spends", not "money".

2. I didn't come to any conclusion that spending more money was a solution to anything. All I said was I didn't think spending less money would fix anything.

3. If you are the least bit interested, it might be a very worthwhile discussion to talk about how these problems might be addressed. So far, all you have shown any interest in is bashing "the other side".

4. I'm not on "the other side". I'm an American. You're an American. We're both Americans on the same side. We both want education to get better. I said, in so many words, that may of the actions taken by folks "on the left" have made matters worse as have actions taken by those "on the right".

We gotta stop this. Not you and me - all of us. It's not "us" and "them". It's just us. We all believed that until the ass holes on cable TV told us otherwise. Anyone who makes their living driving Americans apart is the enemy. They've done more harm to this country than any terrorist could ever hope to do.

It's our children's education we're talking about. The future of our nation. Not a campaign issue. Don't let anyone tell us otherwise. I can be a Democrat and say "maybe we need to take another look at the cost of busing" Maybe it's an idea that's served it's purpose. I can be a Republican and say "until we figure out how to cut the costs, maybe we need to raise taxes". Could be there are loads of places we can save money, but until we actually save the money we might think about spending what we owe.

wcelliot wrote: So your position is negated by actual history and your conclusion that we necessarily need to spend more is simiarly flawed.

Ha! You win! Congratulations!

So, are the schools fixed now?

Where did I say we necessarily need to spend more. Could you quote that bit? (Hell, maybe I said it, but I don't think so.)

Seriously. I'm not fighting you. I'm discussing ways to make our schools better. "My position?" I don't know what "my position" is. How could you?

SVreX wrote: I think eddie's point is that there are a lot of thing to spend money on that aren't directly education. I agree. But most of those links I've posted indicate that most of those "other" expenses are not included in the cost-per-student analysis. Doesn't matter. The cost per student is too much. With or without the "other" stuff.

You might be right. Where do you think all the money is going then? That really seems to be the heart of the issue, one way or another. It's not getting to the classroom and we probably need to take a hard look at that. Get more of that "cost per student" to the actual students.

Leftists are virtually always the issue because of the expensive bureacracies and unfunded mandates they create. So they are an easy target.

Your point on the GOP gaining a majority in the House in 1994 would be a valid one... if the Federal Government had responsibilities for education, if education systems were run by conservatives, and if the system hadn't been failing since...oh about 1954. Again, you make my point for me. ;-)

Education is one of my favotie subjects because it's run almost exclusively by leftists... and performs exactly as you would expect given that fact. Every program would fail similarly if leftist control were as complete.

Until you recognize that LESS bureacracy and LESS government might be the solution, we won't find common ground. Face it, on this issue, ALL of the data is against you. Even your very valid points about money not making it to the classroom are points in favor of my position rtaher than yours.

The answers here actually are easy, just politically unacceptable to leftists. You have to break the current system.

Get the Feds out of education (unconstitutional anyway) and let states give parents vouchers to spend on the education they choose. Everywhere it's been tried (even in socialist Milwaukee) it's been a huge success.

You could cut spending at least 25% and it's unlikely that things could get worse for the bottom of the barrel and likely they'd get much better for everyone else.

Bill

fast_eddie_72:

It may not have been you that said it. It was implied in the first sentence of the thread, and has therefore colored the entire thread.

The essential premise is, more money= better education, less money= worse education. It may not be your premise, but it appeared to be the original premise.

I don't think anyone is arguing with you.

wcelliot wrote: Your point on the GOP gaining a majority in the House in 1994 would be a valid one... if the Federal Government had responsibilities for education, if education systems were run by conservatives, and if the system hadn't been failing since...oh about 1954.

It isn't a point. It's a "joke". It's not at all valid. If there's a point, that's it.

I'm afraid you're hopeless. You don't seem to be able to frame any issue in any manner other than right and left. A fair few of us are getting pretty tired of right and left and we're thinking about running up the middle.

wcelliot wrote: Until you recognize that LESS bureacracy and LESS government might be the solution, we won't find common ground.

How do you know I don't believe that? Until you stop assuming what my position is on any subject based on your preconceived idea of what you think I am you're unlikely to ever find out what I think about anything. Not that it sounds like you care.

Near as I can tell you're just looking for someone to disagree with. I hope it doesn't upset you if I decline the role. I'm not a "leftist". I'm an American.

Why are home school educational performance numbers so good?

I'm interested in a less biased opinion than my own.

Perhaps the answer to that question includes some of the real solutions for the public system (since it's not about money).

Dear GRM

I am sorry. I was just bitching because it doesn't look my girlfriend will be able to find a job near me because all the schools are cutting jobs due to funding.

Me

SVreX wrote: fast_eddie_72: It may not have been you that said it. It was implied in the first sentence of the thread, and has therefore colored the entire thread. The essential premise is, more money= better education, less money= worse education. It may not be your premise, but it appeared to be the original premise. I don't think anyone is arguing with you.

I'm pretty sure it wasn't me who said it. And I don't believe it. To turn around the question I asked Bill earlier, if tomorrow we doubled the education budget, I do not believe things would improve in any significant way. Some buildings might get fixed up and some over crowding might be addressed. But I agree with Bill that there are larger issues.

Here's a thought. Maybe we should stop worrying so much about cost all the time and talk about what we're actually doing. Maybe the answer isn't to spend more or less. Maybe the answer is to do it better.

SVreX wrote: Why are home school educational performance numbers so good? I'm interested in a less biased opinion than my own. Perhaps the answer to that question includes some of the real solutions for the public system (since it's not about money).

Thoughts?

SVreX wrote: fast_eddie_72: It may not have been you that said it. It was implied in the first sentence of the thread, and has therefore colored the entire thread.

Not picking on you. But I thought I should take a look.

93EXCivic wrote: Why the hell is it that the first that seems to always get cut is education?

It doesn't really say spending more will fix anything. It just asks why it's getting cut again. Then everyone ran off to their corner. "I'm a Republican, so he is the enemy!" "I'm a Democrat, so I'm on his side!"

SVreX wrote:

SVreX wrote: Why are home school educational performance numbers so good? I'm interested in a less biased opinion than my own. Perhaps the answer to that question includes some of the real solutions for the public system (since it's not about money).

Thoughts?

Dude, you asked it like four minutes ago. Give me a chance! lol

Yes, it's simple, I think. People who home school their kids are making a tremendous investment of time and dedication to make sure their children are well educated. I can't prove it, but I bet parents who are similarly engaged in their child's education at a decent public school have similar results. Well, anecdotally I can tell you that my wife and I sure spend a lot of our energy working with our kids and they're both doing very, very well.

fast_eddie_72 wrote: Yes, it's simple, I think. People who home school their kids are making a tremendous investment of time and dedication to make sure their children are well educated. I can't prove it, but I bet parents who are similarly engaged in their child's education at a decent public school have similar results. Well, anecdotally I can tell you that my wife and I sure spend a lot of our energy working with our kids and they're both doing very, very well.

Well, come on already! What do you think?!

I think I've spent entirely too much time on this for one night. Got to get up early to drive my son to the public school that's 20 minutes away because the one a quarter mile from my house sucks so bad I wouldn't wish it on anyone.

fast_eddie_72 wrote: I'm not a "leftist". I'm an American.

Sorry, but you're both. That was once a completely incompatible position, but today it's the norm. (The majority of self-identified Democrats do not think that capitalism is superior to socialism.)

You don't seem to realize that it really IS all about basic political philosophies.

If you approach a problem from a leftist philosophical perspective, your solution will invariably be leftist.

If you approach the same issue from a capitalist philosophical perspective, your solution will invariably be capitalist/market oriented in nature.

In this particular case, you are faced with approaching a program completely run by leftists, funded at 3x (in constant dollars), and failing miserably. And yet your instinctive position is more of the same. It's intellectually dishonest to try to paint this as the fault of both sides... leftists own this issue lock, stock, and barrel. So yep, I'm pointing fingers. Factually.

I'm not just "looking for someone to disagree with"... I can't point out the falicy of your logic without putting it in philosophical context.

Until you are openly willing to completely break the system (raher than spending even more money on it), you remain part of the problem vice part of the solution, no matter how noble your intentions may be.

As a capitalist, I can't think of a single program that better exposes the weaknesses of the leftist philosophy... it works exactly as my philosophical position would predict.