The Glade 4.0 https://gladerebooted.net/ |
|
The true cost of public education https://gladerebooted.net/viewtopic.php?f=24&t=2244 |
Page 1 of 2 |
Author: | Dash [ Mon Mar 15, 2010 11:50 pm ] |
Post subject: | The true cost of public education |
A topic I keep revisiting. Does anyone see a coloration between this and health care though? It can go two ways, either make the connection between government run and expensive (and inferior) or you can make the case that as it stands right now, we pay more than (almost?) anyone for both and get mediocre results for both. In health care that is because of lack of coverage. In education... whats the excuse? Nobody can claim we under fund education, and this just highlights it. [youtube]XzvKyfV3JtE[/youtube] |
Author: | Khross [ Tue Mar 16, 2010 7:17 am ] |
Post subject: | Re: The true cost of public education |
CATO Institute, Dash. Anyone who might disagree with you will simply dismiss your OP as intentional misinformation at best; otherwise, it's an outright fabrication. |
Author: | Dash [ Tue Mar 16, 2010 10:15 am ] |
Post subject: | |
I like CATO they have some of the best stuff, and simple concise presentations. But yeah point taken. Still, there are people here who are open minded enough to take a listen. |
Author: | Xequecal [ Tue Mar 16, 2010 10:37 am ] |
Post subject: | |
As I've said a bunch of times, private anything is more efficient and cost effective than public anything. You just have to be willing to accept the fact that some percentage of society won't be able to access the private system. Don't you think it would be a bad thing if we went for fully-private, optional schooling and wound up with a 75% literacy rate because the other 25% had parents that either couldn't afford school or didn't care? |
Author: | Ladas [ Tue Mar 16, 2010 10:44 am ] |
Post subject: | Re: The true cost of public education |
Xequecal wrote: Don't you think it would be a bad thing if we went for fully-private, optional schooling and wound up with a 75% literacy rate because the other 25% had parents that either couldn't afford school or didn't care? That would be why I support the concept of school vouchers. Of course, the unions hate it, because it is seen as an assault on their power and curtails their ability to hold parents hostages for higher pay/benefits, but tough ****. But then, its interesting that the private school which my son attends kicks the living **** out of the local public schools (especially in the middle and high school ranges), yet the annual tuition is only slightly higher than the average cost per student at the public schools (if you use the direct numbers the school system releases only, and don't include the indirect costs, which are hidden and put the public cost higher). |
Author: | Xequecal [ Tue Mar 16, 2010 11:04 am ] |
Post subject: | Re: The true cost of public education |
Ladas wrote: But then, its interesting that the private school which my son attends kicks the living **** out of the local public schools (especially in the middle and high school ranges), yet the annual tuition is only slightly higher than the average cost per student at the public schools (if you use the direct numbers the school system releases only, and don't include the indirect costs, which are hidden and put the public cost higher). Are you sure that the private school isn't getting grants from either the state or federal government? If you pay private tuition you're still paying public school taxes, remember. Personally, I think vouchers are a good first step but they don't really solve the problem. If you give an inner-city school kid a voucher for his annual education dollar amount, he's not going to be able to get much for it, because it's a pittance. Even if the private school he could attend with that money is say 25% better than the public school by virtue of being private, it's still a completely **** education. |
Author: | Timmit [ Tue Mar 16, 2010 11:05 am ] |
Post subject: | Re: |
Xequecal wrote: As I've said a bunch of times, private anything is more efficient and cost effective than public anything. You just have to be willing to accept the fact that some percentage of society won't be able to access the private system. Don't we already have more than a 25% functional illiteracy rate?
Don't you think it would be a bad thing if we went for fully-private, optional schooling and wound up with a 75% literacy rate because the other 25% had parents that either couldn't afford school or didn't care? |
Author: | Rynar [ Tue Mar 16, 2010 11:06 am ] |
Post subject: | Re: Re: |
Timmit wrote: Xequecal wrote: As I've said a bunch of times, private anything is more efficient and cost effective than public anything. You just have to be willing to accept the fact that some percentage of society won't be able to access the private system. Don't we already have more than a 25% functional illiteracy rate?Don't you think it would be a bad thing if we went for fully-private, optional schooling and wound up with a 75% literacy rate because the other 25% had parents that either couldn't afford school or didn't care? SHHHH!!!!!! |
Author: | Ladas [ Tue Mar 16, 2010 11:22 am ] |
Post subject: | Re: The true cost of public education |
Xequecal wrote: Are you sure that the private school isn't getting grants from either the state or federal government? Quite sure. Quote: If you pay private tuition you're still paying public school taxes, remember. I'm quite aware that I am double paying for education for my son. Quote: If you give an inner-city school kid a voucher for his annual education dollar amount, he's not going to be able to get much for it, because it's a pittance. Even if the private school he could attend with that money is say 25% better than the public school by virtue of being private, it's still a completely **** education. I'm not sure you are following the concept of the voucher system, at least as it has been described here. Your voucher isn't based upon the taxes you individually pay, but upon the cost to educate that particular child. There are obviously some flaws and potential for abuse, but the concept is that if it takes the school district $X to educate a child for 1 school year, then the parents of that student can take those dollars to any school as tuition, whether is a different "public" school that they perhaps don't live in the right zone for (the local school district probably has 10+ of each range, elementary, middle and high school), or to a "private" school. It is still wealth redistribution, as you get an equal share of the collected taxes for education, but it attempts to introduce accountability by creating more accessible competition. |
Author: | Xequecal [ Tue Mar 16, 2010 12:10 pm ] |
Post subject: | Re: The true cost of public education |
Ladas wrote: I'm not sure you are following the concept of the voucher system, at least as it has been described here. Your voucher isn't based upon the taxes you individually pay, but upon the cost to educate that particular child. There are obviously some flaws and potential for abuse, but the concept is that if it takes the school district $X to educate a child for 1 school year, then the parents of that student can take those dollars to any school as tuition, whether is a different "public" school that they perhaps don't live in the right zone for (the local school district probably has 10+ of each range, elementary, middle and high school), or to a "private" school. It is still wealth redistribution, as you get an equal share of the collected taxes for education, but it attempts to introduce accountability by creating more accessible competition. No, that is the point. Schools are usually funded by local property taxes. If the local property is worthless, like in an inner city, the school has little money. The voucher gives the child his "share" of that money to take to any school, but it's still a tiny amount of money. Even if he has the grades/intelligence to get in, he still can't go to a much better school because the costs aren't covered. At best he can go to a marginally better private school that can somewhat better use the same amount of money. That's the problem with vouchers in the US, schools are mostly funded on a local level. In other countries where they are funded and administered at a federal level, vouchers are a lot more effective because the poor student gets the "average" education expense amount for the whole country. |
Author: | Hopwin [ Tue Mar 16, 2010 12:15 pm ] |
Post subject: | Re: Re: |
Timmit wrote: Xequecal wrote: As I've said a bunch of times, private anything is more efficient and cost effective than public anything. You just have to be willing to accept the fact that some percentage of society won't be able to access the private system. Don't we already have more than a 25% functional illiteracy rate?Don't you think it would be a bad thing if we went for fully-private, optional schooling and wound up with a 75% literacy rate because the other 25% had parents that either couldn't afford school or didn't care? That's ridiculously out of line and just sensationalism! It's actually 21%.... http://www.associatedcontent.com/articl ... on_dc.html which is in line with Britain apparently. |
Author: | Khross [ Tue Mar 16, 2010 12:28 pm ] |
Post subject: | Re: The true cost of public education |
It's higher than that ... I don't really have any studies, but my experiences indicate functional illiteracy is actually what those studies call literacy. |
Author: | Dash [ Tue Mar 16, 2010 12:48 pm ] |
Post subject: | Re: |
Xequecal wrote: As I've said a bunch of times, private anything is more efficient and cost effective than public anything. You just have to be willing to accept the fact that some percentage of society won't be able to access the private system. Don't you think it would be a bad thing if we went for fully-private, optional schooling and wound up with a 75% literacy rate because the other 25% had parents that either couldn't afford school or didn't care? I would want to know if they truly can not access it, or choose not to. Meaning are there programs and charities they are ignoring, are they using money on non necessary items rather than school etc. |
Author: | Ladas [ Tue Mar 16, 2010 12:52 pm ] |
Post subject: | Re: The true cost of public education |
Timely editorial on the topic from Wall Street Journal. |
Author: | Hopwin [ Tue Mar 16, 2010 12:55 pm ] |
Post subject: | Re: The true cost of public education |
Khross wrote: It's higher than that ... I don't really have any studies, but my experiences indicate functional illiteracy is actually what those studies call literacy. This is the definition used for the study: Quote: People who are functionally illiterate have some ability to read and write, but not enough to be able to fully function in everyday life. They have difficulty with crucial tasks such as filling out job applications, reading maps, understanding bus schedules, reading newspaper articles, etc.
|
Author: | Elmarnieh [ Tue Mar 16, 2010 1:46 pm ] |
Post subject: | Re: |
Xequecal wrote: As I've said a bunch of times, private anything is more efficient and cost effective than public anything. You just have to be willing to accept the fact that some percentage of society won't be able to access the private system. Don't you think it would be a bad thing if we went for fully-private, optional schooling and wound up with a 75% literacy rate because the other 25% had parents that either couldn't afford school or didn't care? What would you consider the functional literacy rate right now and the fact that literacy is measured as reading at a 3rd grade standard? |
Author: | Khross [ Tue Mar 16, 2010 2:20 pm ] |
Post subject: | Re: The true cost of public education |
Quote: People who are functionally illiterate have some ability to read and write, but not enough to be able to fully function in everyday life. They have difficulty with crucial tasks such as filling out job applications, reading maps, understanding bus schedules, reading newspaper articles, etc. Here's the problem ...1. That's not functional. 2. Those standards aren't even close to literacy. |
Author: | Ladas [ Tue Mar 16, 2010 3:43 pm ] |
Post subject: | Re: The true cost of public education |
Another editorial from the WSJ regarding renewed push for identifying "racism" via statistical differences in public education... i.e. the WH hates NCLB because it lowered standards, but we want to cause the same. Quote: Education Secretary Arne Duncan said last week that the Obama Administration will ramp up investigations of civil rights infractions in school districts, which might sound well and good. What it means in practice, however, is that his Office of Civil Rights (OCR) will revert to the Clinton Administration policy of equating statistical disparity with discrimination, which is troubling.
OCR oversees Title VI of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, which prohibits discrimination by race, color or national origin in public schools and colleges that receive federal funding. In a speech last week, Mr. Duncan said that "in the last decade"—that's short for the Bush years—"the Office for Civil Rights has not been as vigilant as it should have been in combating racial and gender discrimination." He cited statistics showing that white students are more likely than their black peers to take Advanced Placement classes and less likely to be expelled from school. Therefore, Mr. Duncan said, OCR "will collect and monitor data on equity." He added that the department will also conduct compliance reviews "to ensure that all students have equal access to educational opportunities" and to determine "whether districts and schools are disciplining students without regard to skin color." The OCR under the Bush Administration rightly focused on reacting to actual complaints of discrimination and issued guidelines to help school districts comply with the law. By contrast, Mr. Duncan plans investigations based on the disparate impact of a school policy, even if no one has alleged any discrimination. Schools and districts that don't have enough blacks taking college prep courses, or don't suspend enough whites for fighting, could face litigation or have federal funding withheld. Inevitably, pressure will be put on districts to get their numbers right and avoid federal scrutiny. Safety is already a major problem in many larger urban schools, where it's not uncommon for students to pass through metal detectors each morning. If districts are afraid to suspend students for fear of an OCR probe, a bad situation is made worse. And if AP classes will now be monitored for racial balance, schools will resort to quotas, lower standards or no longer offer the courses. Roger Clegg of the Center for Equal Opportunity also notes that Mr. Duncan's disparate impact approach to civil rights enforcement may be constitutionally suspect. In a 2001 Supreme Court decision, Alexander v. Sandoval, the Court reaffirmed that Title VI prohibits only disparate treatment and not disparate impact. "There's no statutory basis for this," says Mr. Clegg. Mr. Duncan does minorities no favors by suggesting that racist policies are causing the achievement gap while ignoring the impact of culture, family structure or failing schools. He would do better to focus his department's energies on improving educational choice, promoting performance-based pay for teachers and other reforms. Parents want better schools, not social engineering. |
Author: | Kaffis Mark V [ Tue Mar 16, 2010 3:57 pm ] |
Post subject: | Re: The true cost of public education |
Xequecal wrote: If you give an inner-city school kid a voucher for his annual education dollar amount, he's not going to be able to get much for it, because it's a pittance. Apparently, I need to motivate myself to find you some inner city vs. suburban per-student spending statistics. We throw *tons* of money at urban schools; it's the prime example of why money != success. |
Author: | Dash [ Tue Mar 16, 2010 8:19 pm ] |
Post subject: | Re: The true cost of public education |
Kaffis Mark V wrote: Xequecal wrote: If you give an inner-city school kid a voucher for his annual education dollar amount, he's not going to be able to get much for it, because it's a pittance. Apparently, I need to motivate myself to find you some inner city vs. suburban per-student spending statistics. We throw *tons* of money at urban schools; it's the prime example of why money != success. What Kaffis said. The video claims 28k per student per year in Washington DC, all things considered. That's no pittance, it's close to double minimum wage. |
Author: | Vindicarre [ Wed Mar 17, 2010 2:13 am ] |
Post subject: | Re: The true cost of public education |
Xequecal wrote: If you give an inner-city school kid a voucher for his annual education dollar amount, he's not going to be able to get much for it, because it's a pittance. You are wrong. I've got a suggestion for you X, why don't you research some of these things before you state them? You make some valid points quite often, but on other occasions, a little examination of the assumptions you have that underpin points you try to make could show an error in logic and lead you in a different direction. Kaffis Mark V wrote: Apparently, I need to motivate myself to find you some inner city vs. suburban per-student spending statistics. We throw *tons* of money at urban schools; it's the prime example of why money != success. I did the finding, you can do the posting of your results. Quote: The following links will take you to tables that list districts within each state along with their enrollment figures, number of full-time equivalent K-12 teachers, per-pupil spending, and labor costs for the 2006-07 school year (based on U.S. Census Bureau data). The tables also contain the percentage changes in each category since the 2001-02 school year: http://www.eiaonline.com/districts.htm It isn't pretty to see how much money is spent with poor results. |
Author: | Hopwin [ Wed Mar 17, 2010 7:02 am ] |
Post subject: | Re: The true cost of public education |
Khross wrote: Quote: People who are functionally illiterate have some ability to read and write, but not enough to be able to fully function in everyday life. They have difficulty with crucial tasks such as filling out job applications, reading maps, understanding bus schedules, reading newspaper articles, etc. Here's the problem ...1. That's not functional. 2. Those standards aren't even close to literacy. Agreed. But if 21% of people can't even clear that low bar, its indicative of how widespread the problem most likely is. |
Author: | Diamondeye [ Wed Mar 17, 2010 7:07 am ] |
Post subject: | Re: The true cost of public education |
Khross wrote: Quote: People who are functionally illiterate have some ability to read and write, but not enough to be able to fully function in everyday life. They have difficulty with crucial tasks such as filling out job applications, reading maps, understanding bus schedules, reading newspaper articles, etc. Here's the problem ...1. That's not functional. 2. Those standards aren't even close to literacy. Can you expound on what a better standard of literacy would be? |
Author: | Hopwin [ Wed Mar 17, 2010 7:20 am ] |
Post subject: | |
I won't presume to speak for Khross but if you can't fill out a job application or read a newspaper article then I'd have to say that you aren't literate. The definition itself says these people can't read or write well enough to function fully in everyday life. Personally I set the bar at being able to read/write at the 4th grade level (the level most newspapers and magazines are written on). |
Author: | Taskiss [ Wed Mar 17, 2010 7:31 am ] |
Post subject: | Re: The true cost of public education |
Diamondeye wrote: Can you expound on what a better standard of literacy would be? To me, the minimum would be: Read and write at a middle school level; Add, subtract, multiply and divide 3 digit numbers at 80% accuracy; Use publicly available information to make decisions about personal health care. |
Page 1 of 2 | All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ] |
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group https://www.phpbb.com/ |