Hiigh School should continue until 25 years of age.

[TNAR]

Enrollment declines in Toledo Public Schools … The decline means less money and a continually shrinking district

Yes, I had heard about this; essentially a limited version of the interim voucher program that I recommended earlier. This particular program (started in ’05) is specifically for students who are currently attending chronically under-performing public schools. These students may request a voucher which allows that tax money to move with them to an approved charter or religious school.

There are a few studies out regarding the results to date. One by the Cato Institute focuses on how “the threat of losing students to the voucher program affected standardized test performance in traditional public schools.” This particular study has determined that the expected outcome of this voucher program will result in one of the following scenarios: (1) the program will lead to increased efficiency and academic performance for traditional public schools, as well as mitigating socioeconomic segregation levels; (2) the program will draw critical scarce resources (both dollars and motivated students and parents) away from the traditional public schools resulting in declining levels of quality, and exacerbate segregation along socioeconomic lines; and (3) the program, in its current form, is too small and limited to have much real effect on the traditional public schools in terms of academic quality, efficiency, or segregation.

The results of the data suggest that schools which are most likely threatened to lose students due to the voucher program make “strong gains” in increasing the scores of the lowest and highest performers. The study itself is rather lengthy but a good read.

Another study by The Friedman Foundation concluded that “In 2006-07, its first year of operation, the EdChoice program produced substantial academic improvements in Ohio’s most stubbornly underperforming public schools. Positive effects were detected in some grades, and no negative effects were detected in any grades.”

Ultimately, of course, the jury is still out but if common sense and empirical evidence from the rest of the economy are of any value we will value competition.

When was the last time that you sent a letter? I know that I haven't sent a letter in the last decade.

When was the last time you sent a letter through anyone other than the USPS? The point is that delivery of standard mail has never been something which was priced according to demand and which was never open to competition.

I do not have mountains of money to dump on enrollment and fees for my kids to attend school.

$200 for a K-12 home school kit. I’m sure with a little bit of ingenuity a stay-at-home mom/dad could purchase one of these kits and teach your children for virtually nothing. Even more bizarre would be to eliminate the taxes you pay for education which would give you a sizeable chunk to spend on your children’s education in whichever manner you see fit. Even public school if you desire.

Without strong parental support and involvement in a child's education even private school fails to deliver.

Probably. On the flip side, however, with strong parental support and involvement a private school certainly cannot fare any worse than a public school or parents would not spend the extra money. When you contrast them in this light, common sense tells us that private schools are better than public schools from the perspective of those who purchase their services. That’s the great thing about competition though; because there is no “one size fits all” approach to education (or anything else for that matter), it allows dozens or hundreds of schools to pop up and offer unique and specialized types of education. You may seem to think that “the way it’s always been done” is the best way to do it in the future as well but I would prefer to see thousands of competing methods to offer education which would allow each of us to consume what we desire.

 

[Medusa]

Why would a public school lose money if it lost students? Does the county reduce taxes? Does the federal government reduce taxes? Does any government take a tally of how many students are in attendance and remit funds based on that number? Someone can feel free to correct me if I’m wrong, but from my understanding of pretty much any government agency’s funding processes the amount they receive is based on 1) how much they received previously and 2) how much they request. I have never seen a government agency defend the use of funds on any level.



The USPS certainly competes for packages and large envelopes but there are no competitors for simple letters and postcards. The USPS is struggling because of the inability to set prices based on costs.



I’m not suggesting we destroy it; I’m simply advocating for an end to the monopolization of education. Aren’t we continually being told that monopolies are bad? Why would government monopolies not fall into this category as well?

Education is certainly a necessity but so are food, energy, and shelter. Does the world experience a shortage of any of these because of commercial activity? Not that I’m aware of. On the other hand, there is much shortage of goods worldwide due to government quotas and restrictions.



What do you call the near requirement of all children to attend school for an arbitrarily set period of time if not slavery? Why would you consider competition to be “voluntary slavery”?

through education , not only you create citizens who have been trained in accordance with the social values of a society ,but you provide the efficient personnels for all sectors such as food ,energy ,educational institutions , investment ,finance etc..

so, education has a priority and a place above all those commercial sectors

,education can remain as a voluntary participation ,if it is not let be a part of all competitions..

 

[Aunt Spiker]

How people think Public school is bad - and Private school is best . . . and Homeschooling is a viable option in the middle is beyond me.

If it takes a 4 or 6 year degree to qualify to teach in a public school - and that's not *good* enough for some people - I DOUBT a lot of parents can actually hack a comparable and worthy education from the home.

Some can and are successful - and MANY try and absolutely fail and are court ordered to send their kids off to public school *anyway* because it looks a hell of a lot easier than it is.

 

[Lethargic Aptitude]

Yes, I had heard about this; essentially a limited version of the interim voucher program that I recommended earlier. This particular program (started in ’05) is specifically for students who are currently attending chronically under-performing public schools. These students may request a voucher which allows that tax money to move with them to an approved charter or religious school.

There are a few studies out regarding the results to date. One by the Cato Institute focuses on how “the threat of losing students to the voucher program affected standardized test performance in traditional public schools.” This particular study has determined that the expected outcome of this voucher program will result in one of the following scenarios: (1) the program will lead to increased efficiency and academic performance for traditional public schools, as well as mitigating socioeconomic segregation levels; (2) the program will draw critical scarce resources (both dollars and motivated students and parents) away from the traditional public schools resulting in declining levels of quality, and exacerbate segregation along socioeconomic lines; and (3) the program, in its current form, is too small and limited to have much real effect on the traditional public schools in terms of academic quality, efficiency, or segregation.

The results of the data suggest that schools which are most likely threatened to lose students due to the voucher program make “strong gains” in increasing the scores of the lowest and highest performers. The study itself is rather lengthy but a good read.

Another study by The Friedman Foundation concluded that “In 2006-07, its first year of operation, the EdChoice program produced substantial academic improvements in Ohio’s most stubbornly underperforming public schools. Positive effects were detected in some grades, and no negative effects were detected in any grades.”

Ultimately, of course, the jury is still out but if common sense and empirical evidence from the rest of the economy are of any value we will value competition.

You missed the point. All schools loose money when their student enrollment goes down. A small school does not get the same amount of funds as a large school.

When was the last time you sent a letter through anyone other than the USPS? The point is that delivery of standard mail has never been something which was priced according to demand and which was never open to competition.

You are forgetting about Fedex. They have Fedex envelopes that works great for any document including letters. Which I use to send my catalogs to my customers. Which is small BTW. But I am sure many Americans still only think that they can send letters through US mail. Kind of like those people that still have VCR's.

Face it emails and private carriers are the main reason why the USPS is not doing well. Before both became popular the USPS never was in trouble of going bankrupt.

 

[imagep]

How people think Public school is bad - and Private school is best . . . and Homeschooling is a viable option in the middle is beyond me.

If it takes a 4 or 6 year degree to qualify to teach in a public school - and that's not *good* enough for some people - I DOUBT a lot of parents can actually hack a comparable and worthy education from the home.

Some can and are successful - and MANY try and absolutely fail and are court ordered to send their kids off to public school *anyway* because it looks a hell of a lot easier than it is.

I only know two families that home schooled. In one case the kid was really into race car driving, his grandfather was a famous driver, so starting in Jr. High they "homeschooled" him so that he could spend more time driving. He was 14 when he left public school. I believe that he is either 19 or 20 now, and I have no idea if he is still racing.

The other case the kid just didn't want to go to school in the 9th grade. He ended up attending school in the 10th grade so that he could participate in school sponsored extracurriclar activites, but failed due to attendance problems. The next year he dropped out perminately. Three different times he enrolled in a GED program, dropped out all three times. He is now 20 years old and he "chills at home", sucking off of his mom, contributing nothing to society, because he lost his drivers license, distroyed his car, and doesn't have transportation.

 

[cmakaioz]

Strongly disagree. If anything, public education should be accelerated such that children reach economic independence by the time they hit puberty. What's really needed is a more disciplined culture where people focus on their studies instead of the popularity contest.

Additional formal academic education is a far, far less reliable indicator of improvement in one's job prospects than it used to be. Well-connected dunces (Dubya, anyone?) can land prime jobs in spite of their (lack of) effective higher education, just as people with multiple graduate degrees can go months or years without steady gainful work.

As a former and future educator, I'd be thrilled to see a major cultural shift here which gives greater respect, time, energy, and resources to education (in and out of academia), but employment opportunities and compensation are primarily a matter of negotiating power, and having a degree or two (or five) doesn't necessarily or consistently help someone land a job. The old joke of "How does a PhD in Classical Literature greet their clients at work?..... 'You want fries with that?'", sadly, has a lot of truth to it.

Also, there are the legal and political challenges of attempting to implement wider and deeper curricula for pubescent children. Good luck reducing the minimum working age to 10 or 11 (at the lower end of the age range for the onset of puberty), as well as overcoming the political backlash of the tens of millions of 15-18 year olds whose already-pitiful wages would be dragged down even further (to the minimum, if not already there) by the introduction of millions of 10-14 year old job seekers. Job seekers beyond those age brackets would also suffer dropping wages, as the infusion of a huge pool of desperate job-seekers at the new bottom rung of the ladder lowers the negotiating power of nearly all workers outside of exclusive professions.

So I'd have to pass on that one...let kids go on being kids instead of scrawnier variants of worker bees.

 

[Aunt Spiker]

I only know two families that home schooled. In one case the kid was really into race car driving, his grandfather was a famous driver, so starting in Jr. High they "homeschooled" him so that he could spend more time driving. He was 14 when he left public school. I believe that he is either 19 or 20 now, and I have no idea if he is still racing.

The other case the kid just didn't want to go to school in the 9th grade. He ended up attending school in the 10th grade so that he could participate in school sponsored extracurriclar activites, but failed due to attendance problems. The next year he dropped out perminately. Three different times he enrolled in a GED program, dropped out all three times. He is now 20 years old and he "chills at home", sucking off of his mom, contributing nothing to society, because he lost his drivers license, distroyed his car, and doesn't have transportation.

Yes, exactly - I know some homeschooling parents who were really good, organized and meticulous and their children learned all that public-school children learned within a religious environment (etc - whatever hte focus the parents want to provide).

But I know many who tried and it didn't work out.

I homeschooled for a while - so we could attend to my son's learning disorders - and it was hard work to keep him on track so when he went back to school he could slip in easily. I would definitely not encourage all parents to consider it blindly - it's a heavy and serious undertaking that requires constant thought and attention and merely following along with a pre-written 'kit' isn't enough to compensate for the many other things that are learned and experienced in public school.

It is not simple. . . and shouldn't be treated as such.

The best option for concerned parents is to be involved with public schooling - where the law, student rights and legislation is on your side and you have possible action to take ot make necessary changes possible.

This level of parental involvement is not found in private schools. . . it's very sterile. Not saying it's terrible - but it's given way too much praise and too much attention with little focus on it's given negatives at the same time.

 

[cmakaioz]

Compared to what? Sure, public schools have a benefit over not going to school (depending on the school) but do they have a clear benefit over private alternatives? Perhaps. What if taxpayers could direct their education tax money to the school of their choice? I would bet that public schools wouldn't fare so well. Competition is a mean ol' bird.

Private and public schools don't actually do better than each other, because they're not trying to accomplish the same overall goal in the first place.

Providing an effective academic education to a privately-selected student population, drawn from those who can afford the tuition and who also match the ideology and/or religious affiliation of the private school...is dramatically different form providing and effective academic education to ALL students (no filtering beyond age and residency requirements) within a particular area, and with no ideological privileges or exclusions.

There is of course massive variation within private schools as a whole, and within public schools as a whole, but direct comparison of public vs. private systems is worse than apples and oranges...it's more like apples and zebras...they're not even in the same evolutionary branch.

 

[cmakaioz]

I like the idea of some mandatory service either military/teaching inner city schools/working at a national park...whatever.

That's potentially a positive new standard...but only if offered as a genuinely voluntary option, and paid AT LEAST the average wage for whatever line of work is chosen. Otherwise, it's just an earlier than usual introduction to scheduled unpaid work.

 

[imagep]

That's potentially a positive new standard...but only if offered as a genuinely voluntary option, and paid AT LEAST the average wage for whatever line of work is chosen. Otherwise, it's just an earlier than usual introduction to scheduled unpaid work.

What I like about it is that it provides opportunity. Young people can could enroll in one of these service programs, and know that as long as they show up for work, and do at least the minimum, that they will have food, shelter, and medical care. Lots of young people today, particularlly in the urban areas that are always used as examples of our "fail schools" simply don't know that opportunities exist (for them). No one every bothered to tell them this, or to point out those opportunities, or to lead them to the opportunities. they have always been told that they are no good, loosers, stupid, uneducated, animials, etc, even by their own families. There are only so many times that you can be told something like that before most people will believe it.

I understand why many people don't think that any public service should be mandatory, but personally I think that unless we make it mandatory, many of the people who would benefit the most from it wouldn't do it. They would remain on the streets of Detroit, living off of the taxpayer and who ever they rip off or sell drugs to. Naturally I would include many alternative options, like full time college attendance, or a full time job, or a job training program, etc. As much as I think that it is ludicris to extend high school to age 25, I think it is ludicris that we don't ensure that everyone younger than maybe age 22 or 23 has an opportunity, and is lead (or forced if that's what it takes) into that opportunity.

When I was in Jr. High, my dad was the administrator of a program for "at risk youth" in my school system. It was kinda embarrising to me because he was at my school one or two days a week, and I crenged when I heard his voice in the hall or saw those dorky striped pants that he frequently wore. Anyhow, every once in a while, years after the program ended, some of those kids that he worked for thanked him for pointing out that they do have choices and opportunities. Others we would read about in the paper, maybe they robbed the liquer store, or beat their granny to death, or some other tragic ending for themselves and others. Many of the more successful kids from his program joined the military. It was a way to instantly get away from the bad influences, and instantly have a good income, good food, a healthy lifestyle, and to earn some self respect.

 

[cmakaioz]

Why would a public school lose money if it lost students? Does the county reduce taxes? Does the federal government reduce taxes? Does any government take a tally of how many students are in attendance and remit funds based on that number?

As a matter of fact, they do. "Butts in seats", as many call it. District, state, and sometimes federal funds are often apportioned according to student-class hours. In college in particular, de-funded college systems (like California's, which has been cut THROUGH the bone), tuition has gone way up, and course offerings gone way down, such that programs (not just classes, mind you, but whole programs) at many campuses are being canceled if initial or average attendance drops below a certain threshold. I was in a local microscopy program, and last year it was cut...not cut back, but cut OUT. Never mind that it had won several awards, recognitions in local media, and had a job placement record well above many other programs.

Someone can feel free to correct me if I’m wrong, but from my understanding of pretty much any government agency’s funding processes the amount they receive is based on 1) how much they received previously and 2) how much they request. I have never seen a government agency defend the use of funds on any level.

Then try looking. Out here in CA, it has become almost a quarterly ritual for parents, educators, and students to go grovel before their respective boards to not cut the class, program, or (in some cases) the school itself out of the education budget.

Education is certainly a necessity but so are food, energy, and shelter. Does the world experience a shortage of any of these because of commercial activity?

Absolutely it does. Basing access to needs upon purchase, combined with basing most purchase-access on a commercial basis, is exactly why we already have technology and resources capable of feeding, clothing, housing, and medically treating everyone on earth...and yet this ISN'T done; we still have people in destitution all over the world. It's not a matter of real scarcity, but of artificial scarcity...which is in turn created by requiring purchase on a commercial basis for needs.

Not that I’m aware of. On the other hand, there is much shortage of goods worldwide due to government quotas and restrictions.

Government quotas and restrictions are a subspecies of purchase requirements. It doesn't matter -- for purposes of identifying that purchase-access creates artificial scarcity -- which flavor of source (public vs. private) of the purchase-based artificial scarcity may be.

 

[Harshaw]

The responsibilities of adulthood should begin earlier, not later. Coddling people into their mid-twenties is asinine.

 

[TNAR]

You missed the point. All schools loose money when their student enrollment goes down. A small school does not get the same amount of funds as a large school.

No they don't. 99% of public schools do not lose money when they lose students. 99% of public schools are in no way held accountable for poor results. Does some of this apply to private schools as well? Of course it does. Blind reverence (not suggesting you specifically are guilty of this) to public schools is proof of the failure of the public education system.

Face it emails and private carriers are the main reason why the USPS is not doing well. Before both became popular the USPS never was in trouble of going bankrupt.

I would agree with that for the most part. On the other hand, they were a monopoly so it would take a terribly moronic manager to run it into the ground.

... whose already-pitiful wages would be dragged down even further ...

How many 11 to 18-year old children do you know who work in order to provide for all of their needs? I thought I was rolling in cash when I first started working "officially" and got minimum wage. Some children certainly must begin providing for themselves at an unfortunately early age but this in no way suggests that even a small minority must do so let alone enough to justify your choice of words.

As a matter of fact, they do. ... In college in particular ... Out here in CA, it has become almost a quarterly ritual for parents, educators, and students to go grovel before their respective boards to not cut the class, program, or (in some cases) the school itself out of the education budget.

Don't forget your apples and zebras mantra. I have been referring to K-12. Perhaps in some parts of the nation and for certain types of funding they will be directly concerned with the number of students attending. My point since the beginning is that with the exception to voucher programs, no public school - that I am aware of - will lose X dollars per student less than the previous school year. Furthermore, this has absolutely nothing to do with general budget cuts which are due to the complete failure of bureaucrats to understand how simple budgets work.

 

[Lethargic Aptitude]

No they don't. 99% of public schools do not lose money when they lose students. 99% of public schools are in no way held accountable for poor results. Does some of this apply to private schools as well? Of course it does. Blind reverence (not suggesting you specifically are guilty of this) to public schools is proof of the failure of the public education system.

You obviously do not have any kids in school and do not follow how the system works. You may want to go do some research and learn that right now you have no clue what you are talking about. Private schools are even less accountable then public schools. Let me point out again that I do not believe that the public school system is anywhere near perfect.

I would agree with that for the most part. On the other hand, they were a monopoly so it would take a terribly moronic manager to run it into the ground.

Which is my point, the USPS is no longer a monopoly.

 

[cmakaioz]

How many 11 to 18-year old children do you know who work in order to provide for all of their needs?

At the lower end (11 YO), Zero. At the upper end, I've met around 40. That's all irrelevant, because (especially in the kind of recession we're in), wages at entry-level jobs are heavily influenced by minimum wage. Pumping up the numbers of folks who work at minimum wage in a given line of work lowers wages generally in it. A mandatory program injecting children into work programs would lower wages in at least one additional way, by greatly increasing the size of the local pool of applicants for minimum wage jobs, giving employers even MORE privilege in negotiation of hiring pay rates: "This is too low for you? Fine...I'll go scoop up another C student from the local grade school, and he'll be happy to accept this job, because he MUST accept it somewhere nearby."

I thought I was rolling in cash when I first started working "officially" and got minimum wage. Some children certainly must begin providing for themselves at an unfortunately early age but this in no way suggests that even a small minority must do so let alone enough to justify your choice of words.

Thanks for further demonstrating my point. By rationalizing overall depression of low-pay jobs on the grounds that It's OK to pay below a living wage because most children are supported by their parents, you've implicitly acknowledged that minimum wage is not a living wage. But independent adults out there who lack the opportunity (whether through lack of bargaining power or through employer prejudice lead to such candidates being dismissed out of hand) must still try to piece together a livelihood, and for them the consequence of not finding work IS potential homelessness, starvation, etc. By increasing the pool of applicants for local low-pay work, and especially by increasing that pool through the injection of child jobseekers who DON'T necessarily need to make a living wage (and are indeed required to accept work at such rates), the downward drag on wages is made even worse. It's similar to the effect of prison labor applied to commercial business; if an unethical employer (or an ethical employer who has to compete with unethical ones) has access to prison labor, that presence of low-paid (or even unpaid) prison labor drags down (or keeps down) the wages of people outside of prison who seek such work.

Don't forget your apples and zebras mantra. I have been referring to K-12. Perhaps in some parts of the nation and for certain types of funding they will be directly concerned with the number of students attending. My point since the beginning is that with the exception to voucher programs, no public school - that I am aware of - will lose X dollars per student less than the previous school year. Furthermore, this has absolutely nothing to do with general budget cuts which are due to the complete failure of bureaucrats to understand how simple budgets work.

First off, you're simply wrong to claim that no K-12 school funding is anchored to attendance, such that the school budget has an automatic floor. Out here in CA, many schools are regularly denied the known minimum funding which would be needed to procure basics (like textbooks from the same decade, the hire of minimal maintenance crews, payroll to hire and retain teachers of required subjects). In some districts, budgets have been cut so dramatically that some areas are hit with school closures (that's not a reduction with a floor set by previous years...that's going from Really Bad...to NOTHING...practically overnight).

During meetings discussing and announcing budget matters, underfunded districts don't explicitly base funding of schools on attendance ON PAPER, but they do on a de facto basis, since representatives and constituents from the various schools (whose classes, programs, or mere existence as schools are all potentially on the chopping block) crawl all over themselves trying to point to good attendance figures as one of the many justifications for cutting someone ELSE's programs instead. That's competition for you: focusing more energy on throwing other schools and programs under the bus than upon real education, because few to none of them are are getting the basic resources you all need. That's not improvement of education through competition...but abandonment of it.

There are plenty of bureaucratic nightmares, but when whole schools are shut down by regional or state officials without reference to local decisions, that's got nothing to do with local administrators' budgeting failures.

 

[TNAR]

You obviously do not have any kids in school and do not follow how the system works. ... Let me point out again that I do not believe that the public school system is anywhere near perfect.

Since when did having kids in school make one an expert on the school system? Hasn't just about everyone in this discussion lamented the "fact" that parents aren't involved enough in their children's education? Wouldn't that assumption equally mean that they know jack about how the system itself works? Your qualifier has absolutely nothing to do with the knowledge we're discussing. The simple fact is that not all public schools base their funding on the number of students in attendance; very few to my knowledge do.

I understand that you don't believe public schools are perfect just as I assume you realize that I don't believe private schools are perfect (or anything is perfect for that matter). Everyone seems to have their blinders on so I'm just trying to point out other positions.

At the lower end (11 YO), Zero. At the upper end, I've met around 40. That's all irrelevant...

If it's irrelevant then why bother suggesting this correlation at all? In order for your point to have any validity not only must it be relevant but it must be shown to have a causal relationship. Neither of which you have proved and in fact have admitted it is not even relevant. Furthermore, who is suggesting a mandatory work program for children? What in the world does this have to do with the topic at hand?

...you've implicitly acknowledged that minimum wage is not a living wage.

I'll explicitly admit it if you would like me to. This, of course, assumes a great many things regarding the minimum wage and those who earn it. To begin with, you assume that the minimum wage ought to be a living wage. If the minimum wage is a "living" wage then what wage will children earn as they are first starting to learn work ethics? Dishwashers and bus boys should earn a "living" wage while they are in school and living with their parents? Pure idiocy. Secondly, you assume that those who actually work in order to earn a living are only earning the minimum wage. Study after study shows that those who work for sustenance and do a good job earn pay increases in very short periods. The only affect of mandating a minimum wage is the forced unemployment of submarginal workers.

First off, you're simply wrong to claim ... that the school budget has an automatic floor. Out here in CA, many schools are regularly denied the known minimum funding which would be needed to procure basics ...

I made no claim of an "automatic floor" and am very much in favor of shutting down failing schools. Furthermore, I don't fall victim to the "we need more money" claim.

 

[MKULTRABOY]

To extend High School would be to lengthen the emotional and intellectual umbilical cord to the state and be unduly burdensome to the taxpayer in providing that education. Moreover, it would provide an excuse for every lazy, good for nothing interloper who wants to delay living in the real world.

Oh... and I thought that dropouts were the problem...

also... what does my 'emotional' umbilical cord feel like?

 

[imagep]

I made no claim of an "automatic floor" and am very much in favor of shutting down failing schools. Furthermore, I don't fall victim to the "we need more money" claim.

So those kids will not have a place to go to school? Or are you saying that we would just bus more urban inner city kids to the "good" subburban schools? Regardless, I agree that more money is not the answer.

 

[Lethargic Aptitude]

Since when did having kids in school make one an expert on the school system? Hasn't just about everyone in this discussion lamented the "fact" that parents aren't involved enough in their children's education? Wouldn't that assumption equally mean that they know jack about how the system itself works? Your qualifier has absolutely nothing to do with the knowledge we're discussing. The simple fact is that not all public schools base their funding on the number of students in attendance; very few to my knowledge do.

I understand that you don't believe public schools are perfect just as I assume you realize that I don't believe private schools are perfect (or anything is perfect for that matter). Everyone seems to have their blinders on so I'm just trying to point out other positions.

Perhaps it is you that is wearing blinders? I dont know where you are getting your information but most states use Attendance-Based School Funding for public schools.

» Attendance-Based School Funding Needs Revamping Educated Nation

Attendance Counts: This Week Crucial For State School Funding | NBC 4i

Empty Seats Cost School Districts Millions « Investigative Newsource

Urban Education : Funding

 

[TNAR]

So those kids will not have a place to go to school? Or are you saying that we would just bus more urban inner city kids to the "good" subburban schools? Regardless, I agree that more money is not the answer.

Simply because a failing school is shut down doesn't mean that kids "will not have a place to go to school". This is like claiming that if the corner grocery store closes down the neighborhood won't have anyplace to buy groceries. Failure is the chosen method of free markets to make clear that resources are not properly being utilized. Take the resources these schools are using and allow them to be competed for. Why is this such a contentious idea?

I dont know where you are getting your information but most states use Attendance-Based School Funding for public schools.

You listed evidence from California and Ohio, both of which we've already talked about and this is supposed to show that "most states" receive funding based on attendance?

In the states I have lived in, the bulk of the budget came from property taxes and lottery funds. This means that politicians arbitrarily set property tax rates (which were previously influenced by administrative petitioning) and the amount generated gets spread throughout the various schools. Perhaps within each jurisdiction the amount of money is distributed per attendance rates but the total amount available is determined by taxes.



As you can see, according to National Center for Education Statistics (NCES), the total revenues in 2008 were comprised of: local government 44%, state government 48%, federal government 8%.

 

[Lethargic Aptitude]

Simply because a failing school is shut down doesn't mean that kids "will not have a place to go to school". This is like claiming that if the corner grocery store closes down the neighborhood won't have anyplace to buy groceries. Failure is the chosen method of free markets to make clear that resources are not properly being utilized. Take the resources these schools are using and allow them to be competed for. Why is this such a contentious idea?



You listed evidence from California and Ohio, both of which we've already talked about and this is supposed to show that "most states" receive funding based on attendance?

In the states I have lived in, the bulk of the budget came from property taxes and lottery funds. This means that politicians arbitrarily set property tax rates (which were previously influenced by administrative petitioning) and the amount generated gets spread throughout the various schools. Perhaps within each jurisdiction the amount of money is distributed per attendance rates but the total amount available is determined by taxes.

View attachment 67122513

As you can see, according to National Center for Education Statistics (NCES), the total revenues in 2008 were comprised of: local government 44%, state government 48%, federal government 8%.

Thats cool but it doesnt show how the money is determined to go to individual schools. That is the general fund level. It is broken down after that level.

Obviously you are assuming that the money is just divided up and each school gets the same amount. If that was the case then all schools would be equally equipped, which they are not. A school with 5,000 students does not get the same amount of funding as a school with only 100 students. Funding is assessed by how much annually is spent on each attending student.

You simply need to research further.

 

[TNAR]

Thats cool but it doesnt show how the money is determined to go to individual schools. That is the general fund level. It is broken down after that level.

I realize that and even suggested that this was likely the manner in which it occurs. "Perhaps within each jurisdiction the amount of money is distributed per attendance rates ..." But this means little to the actual level of funding.

Suppose we live in New Hollywood county and there are five different public schools. The New Hollywood council have determined that the property tax rate shall be 12.5% which nets the county $1,500,000 earmarked specifically for the schools. We can also assume an arbitrary figure from state and federal levels but we'll ignore them for the moment because they make no difference in the results. This $1.5 million must somehow be appropriated between the various schools within the district, yes? So they will likely place a large emphasis on the numbers of students attending each school with a few other qualitative and quantitative factors thrown on top. Let's assume, for easy math, that there are 1,500 students in this district and they attend the schools in the following breakdown: School A - 100 students; B - 200; C - 300; D - 400; E - 500. Each student has $1,000 attached to them which means that school A receives $100,000; B - $200,000; etc.

Obviously the budget is tied to the numbers of students in attendance. This is not at issue and was never at issue. The factor which is being overlooked is how the original figure of $1.5 million is determined. This figure has virtually nothing to do with the numbers of students in attendance throughout the district and essentially everything to do with an arbitrary political number. In other words, the U.S. has had an enormous increase in education funding throughout the years because politicians who run their campaigns on the promise to "improve" education are highly successful. They throw more money at education without regard to the numbers of students as a trick to get re-elected.

Perhaps you (plural you) don't mind allowing the education of your children to be a big political game but I sure as hell do. At least in the private market I can choose not to give any of my money to those institutions which I feel are simply churning out numbers.

 

[Lethargic Aptitude]

I realize that and even suggested that this was likely the manner in which it occurs. "Perhaps within each jurisdiction the amount of money is distributed per attendance rates ..." But this means little to the actual level of funding.

Suppose we live in New Hollywood county and there are five different public schools. The New Hollywood council have determined that the property tax rate shall be 12.5% which nets the county $1,500,000 earmarked specifically for the schools. We can also assume an arbitrary figure from state and federal levels but we'll ignore them for the moment because they make no difference in the results. This $1.5 million must somehow be appropriated between the various schools within the district, yes? So they will likely place a large emphasis on the numbers of students attending each school with a few other qualitative and quantitative factors thrown on top. Let's assume, for easy math, that there are 1,500 students in this district and they attend the schools in the following breakdown: School A - 100 students; B - 200; C - 300; D - 400; E - 500. Each student has $1,000 attached to them which means that school A receives $100,000; B - $200,000; etc.

Obviously the budget is tied to the numbers of students in attendance. This is not at issue and was never at issue. The factor which is being overlooked is how the original figure of $1.5 million is determined. This figure has virtually nothing to do with the numbers of students in attendance throughout the district and essentially everything to do with an arbitrary political number. In other words, the U.S. has had an enormous increase in education funding throughout the years because politicians who run their campaigns on the promise to "improve" education are highly successful. They throw more money at education without regard to the numbers of students as a trick to get re-elected.

Perhaps you (plural you) don't mind allowing the education of your children to be a big political game but I sure as hell do. At least in the private market I can choose not to give any of my money to those institutions which I feel are simply churning out numbers.

If what you are saying is true then you should be able to show some ridiculously high per student figures.
How much is too much in your opinion?

I couple things wrong with your claim though. It isnt always election time. And single politicians do not have the power to say how much funding educations gets. Usually in states it goes to vote in the house. Politicians can promise all they want but in the end they usually fail on the follow thorough because not everyone sees it that way. There are just too many other factors that your claim is not really valid IMO.

But my point still stands that the number of students directly affects how much money a school gets. Less students less money for that school. A school cannot spend money that the laws say that it cannot. School districts have budgets based on available money. Depending on the laws in a particular school district pertaining to the time frame, say annually. All that money they get is already spent for that school year. If there are less students the next school year the district and the schools with less students have smaller budgets.

The are Laws the Feds, States, counties, and municipalities must abide by. Some politician looking for votes does not have the power to bypass those laws. Most likely what extra funding they did get was what was being asked for in the first place which were legal.

But there is not anything stopping you or anyone else from using private schools. If that is what you do or want to do I dont see what the problem is. That certainly is your liberty.

 

[TNAR]

School districts have budgets based on available money.

My entire point. You put it much simpler though.

If what you are saying is true then you should be able to show some ridiculously high per student figures.
How much is too much in your opinion?

How much would it cost if I had to shell out the money out of my pocket instead of hidden in taxes and subsidized by the rich and those with no children? Who knows. The fact that I can home school a child for only $200 K-12 suggests that it would be much lower than the figures one sees around the country. Most certainly it ought to be less than what is currently being expended considering that test scores have not been improving and thus do not justify the added costs. Check out this chart of expenditures per student since 1961:

Year - Current - Constant
1961-62 - $393 - $2,808
1970-71 - $842 - $4,552
1980-81 - $2,307 - $5,718
1986-87 - $3,682 - $7,105
1990-91 - $4,902 - $7,857
1995-96 - $5,689 - $7,904
1996-97 - $5,923 - $8,002
1997-98 - $6,189 - $8,214
1998-99 - $6,508 - $8,490
1999-2000 - $6,912 - $8,765
2000-01 - $7,380 - $9,048
2001-02 - $7,727 - $9,309
2002-03 - $8,044 - $9,482
2003-04 - $8,310 - $9,586
2004-05 - $8,711 - $9,754
2005-06 - $9,145 - $9,865
2006-07 - $9,679 - $10,178
2007-08 - $10,297 - $10,441

Do you think this is a reasonable amount per student?

 

[imagep]

My entire point. You put it much simpler though.



How much would it cost if I had to shell out the money out of my pocket instead of hidden in taxes and subsidized by the rich and those with no children? Who knows. The fact that I can home school a child for only $200 K-12 suggests that it would be much lower than the figures one sees around the country. Most certainly it ought to be less than what is currently being expended considering that test scores have not been improving and thus do not justify the added costs. Check out this chart of expenditures per student since 1961:

Year - Current - Constant
1961-62 - $393 - $2,808
1970-71 - $842 - $4,552
1980-81 - $2,307 - $5,718
1986-87 - $3,682 - $7,105
1990-91 - $4,902 - $7,857
1995-96 - $5,689 - $7,904
1996-97 - $5,923 - $8,002
1997-98 - $6,189 - $8,214
1998-99 - $6,508 - $8,490
1999-2000 - $6,912 - $8,765
2000-01 - $7,380 - $9,048
2001-02 - $7,727 - $9,309
2002-03 - $8,044 - $9,482
2003-04 - $8,310 - $9,586
2004-05 - $8,711 - $9,754
2005-06 - $9,145 - $9,865
2006-07 - $9,679 - $10,178
2007-08 - $10,297 - $10,441

Do you think this is a reasonable amount per student?

Based on why my school sytem operates on, thats way to much.