Education

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

So, what is it you'd like to do to keep that from happening?

You are still only working on one side of the accounting sheet. You are only concerned about the lost revenue.

What about the reduced expenses?

If the educational cost is $XXX, and the student is removed, the cost is reduced by $XXX.

Let's say 10% of the students left (unlikely). 10% of the educational expenses would also be go away. There would be 10% fewer books, teachers, heating bills, buses, etc.

Or, a smart Superintendent of Schools could judiciously choose how to better his system. He could reduce all of the costs except for the teacher, so the student/ teacher ratio could improve (presumably improving the school's performance for the next year).

The thing is, the voucher amount would be completely determined by the school and local leadership.

(Warning- made up numbers) Let's say the educational cost per student is $8000, and the total real cost is more like $25,000. 5,000 students in the system. The educational costs of the system are $40 million, the operating costs are $85 million, and the total real cost is $125 million (the same as the amount of money available). 10% of the students leave, and take with them educational vouchers of $5000 each ($2.5 million). The revenue is reduced to $122.5 million, but the expenses have been reduced to $121 million. The bottom line is that the school system now spends $1.5 million less than the revenue.

That's a cost SAVING for teaching FEWER kids. And I don't know any school that can't think of good things to do with an extra $1.5 million!

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

Okay, I watched the video. I'm sorry, I don't see that it's much different than the article I responded about earlier. I guarantee that money is being spent. I wonder if what it is being spent on is anything I would call "education". And I believe that is exactly the point they are trying to make. However, while they are claiming the schools are being dishonest, I suspect they're being a little dishonest themselves. We've talked about what many of these additional costs really are. But they chose not to mention that in the video and, in fact, make it look like you could just take that figure and equate it to the cost of a private school. Again, this is kind of rehashing things we've already talked about.

I believe the CATO institute is typically more honest in their agenda. They often make a good case to reduce social services. That's what this comes down to.

I've said this before, but I'll say it again. If the CATO Institute, or you, or me, or President Obama or John Boehner believe we should eliminate free, public education, then they should just say so and let us have an open and honest debate about it.

Again, that video. Sources like that clearly are built in a way to create the impression that there is massive "waste". But they didn't mention what that "waste" is being spent on. How can they say they are offering an unbiased report when they throw stones but never offer a solution?

I've agreed we're spending too much, at least if you call all the things we're spending money on "education". But I do not agree that the people at your community school are wasting a lot of money. I'm sure there are cases where they are. But generally, there isn't a lot left to waste.

An example. My wife is a school librarian. Well, sort of. She's a "para-professional", whatever that means. They got rid of the teacher/librarian because they couldn't afford to keep her.

She makes about $8,000 a year. Hum. That doesn't seem like "waste" for a librarian. What line does that fall on in some of these "reports"? Administrative costs. It's a school. It's a library. Is that what we are talking about when we talk about "waste" in education? But her library may be shut down, along with many others, because there is no money left. No money for an $8,000 librarian? Shoot, we consider it damn near "volunteer" work as is.

They have few choices. There is so much "mandated" spending that they don't get to make a lot of decisions at the actual school. So stupid things like this happen so they can continue to bus kids to private school. The private school, by the way, has a library. She's applying for the job now that she's finishing her Master's degree. Actually, they have two.

So where does all the money go at that school? Let me preface this by saying, it goes to something that we should be doing in my estimation. Her school is the school for the deaf and hard of hearing kids in Denver. They spend a lot on programs, specially trained teachers, technology etc. to help deaf kids get an education. You know how many deaf kids they have at the private school? Zero. But they have two libraries, and the public school is closing the one they have.

Okay. Earlier you said:

SVreX wrote: 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.

You make the point, and I agree, that it doesn't cost the family any more with regard to "lost income" for a parent to teach one kid vs. 13.

Now you say:

SVreX wrote: If the educational cost is $XXX, and the student is removed, the cost is reduced by $XXX.

Adding kids to home school doesn't raise the cost. But removing kids from the public school lowers cost. I tend to agree more with your earlier post than your later. Especially when there are so many mandated, fixed costs that have nothing to do with the education of an individual child- a point you continue to ignore.

Say we have a class for mentally disabled kids (or whatever you're supposed to call them now) and the law mandates that a teacher with special training be made available for them. They need their own room and the law mandates special programs and materials be provided, all of which come at some cost. Say the additional cost is $1,000 (just making that up). Thre are 5 kids in the class.

There is alos the "regular" class. It has 20 kids. Cost to run that class is $500. So to run the whole thing is $1,500 for 25 kids for a "per pupil cost" of $60.

Five of the regular kids leave. Although I don't see where the saving would come from, lets assume it now only costs $375 to run the "regular" class. Total cost is now $1,375 for 20 kids or $68.75 "per pupil".

Same is true for the busing to private school. It costs more, but divides by fewer students. Same is true for all of those programs. Teacher doesn't get less when he retires, divided by fewer students. School doesn't get any cheaper to heat, after school programs less expensive to run etc, etc.

500 fewer students in a school certainly requires fewer teachers.

More children living in the same house does not require more teachers.

SVreX wrote: 500 fewer students in a school certainly requires fewer teachers. More children living in the same house does not require more teachers.

You're ignoring the additional cost of mandated programs.

Say we have a class for mentally disabled kids (or whatever you're supposed to call them now) and the law mandates that a teacher with special training be made available for them. They need their own room and the law mandates special programs and materials be provided, all of which come at some cost. Say the additional cost is $1,000 (just making that up). Thre are 5 kids in the class.

There is also the "regular" class. It has 20 kids. Cost to run that class is $500. So to run the whole thing is $1,500 for 25 kids for a "per pupil cost" of $60.

Five of the regular kids leave. Although I don't see where the saving would come from, lets assume it now only costs $375 to run the "regular" class. Total cost is now $1,375 for 20 kids or $68.75 "per pupil".

I really am done now. You told me you were personally offended when I missed one damn link you posted. You're not paying any attention to any of the information I've presented. If that is, as you say, disrespectful, you can see how some would find your style of debate frustrating.

I am not ignoring the cost of the mandated programs. I am putting them in a different column than you are. They would all have to fall into the "overhead" part of the equation. In my earlier example, they would fall inside of the $17000 per student that was not touchable. You keep trying to put them inside the $8000 "cost per pupil".

You are citing the exceptions, not the generalities.

The details of a budget are completely meaningless. The school system can design the budget and the system in whatever way they see fit. It doesn't change the fact that they can make such choices in a manner which is beneficial to them, if they utilize basic management skills.

And we already agreed on the busing question being BS. Change the law. No biggy. It has NO impact on the question of whether vouchers are a good idea. It only evidences bad mismanagement.

SVreX wrote: It only evidences bad mismanagement.

Legislated spending. Mismanagement? By the courts and government maybe. But not the schools. But I've said this at least 10 times. Not any more likely to pay attention to it now than you did any of the other times.

We agreed on busing only after I said it a million times. Until then, I was making it up. I tried again and will try once more... er, again.

"Holding schools accountable" with testing - good or bad?

Come on, eddie. Calm down. There were several other people who never followed your line of reasoning on the busing thing. Is it possible you had not communicated clearly?

You’re probably right. I probably just didn’t communicate clearly.

These posts were probably unclear too and that’s why you haven’t responded to them.

fast_eddie_72 wrote: They also don't have to conform to the government mandated curriculum or testing regime. If public schools are going to "compete" with private schools, remove the burden of unrelated expense and government curriculum.

fast_eddie_72 wrote: If people are voting with their decisions, many are voting that the "holding schools accountable through testing" idea failed. They are taking their kids out of schools being "held accountable" and putting them in schools that aren't. And which ones are performing better?

fast_eddie_72 wrote: We're mandating how they do it and then we tell them they're doing it wrong. "Why don't you do it like the charter school or the private school?" When the answer is "Because it's illegal if I do it that way even though it's clearly more effective".

fast_eddie_72 wrote: To break it down in a bite size chunk- that worked well with the busing issue- let’s take one more specific issue. Curriculum and Testing. It really is one issue. Public schools must teach the mandated curriculum and are “held accountable” through testing. That’s the government solution to improving education. We’ve been doing it for a while. Anyone think the schools have improved? The actual educators tell us that the testing is hindering their ability to teach kids. But since, in many cases, their funding, and at least here in Denver, the teacher salary, is tied directly to performance on the test, they have to teach the mandated curriculum and they have no choice but to participate in the tests. Private schools, by contrast, have no such constraint. They chose a curriculum that they deem best for their students.

fast_eddie_72 wrote: "Holding schools accountable" with testing - good or bad?

I guess what I was trying to say is public schools have their curriculum dictated by the government and we’re told they’re being “held accountable” through testing. But the public schools aren’t getting better, the better schools don’t do it, and the educators say it’s keeping them from teaching the kids.

Any opinion on that?

I'm no fan of tests as a method of defining educational success- always leads to teaching to the test, and my opinion of NCLB is pretty low.

Is that what you are asking?

I didn't miss the posts. My opinion on the matter didn't seem too relevant to the subject at hand, so I offered none. Wasn't trying to ignore you.

SVreX wrote: I'm no fan of tests as a method of defining educational success- always leads to teaching to the test, and my opinion of NCLB is pretty low. Is that what you are asking?

So private schools have an advantage. I agree with you. Teaching to the test is a bad idea.

Education reform plan.

1. Stop paying for busing to private schools with tax dollars.

2. Repeal no child left behind and any state laws that link school funding to test scores.

3. Repeal any laws that mandate curriculum and let educators decide how to teach kids.

It's a good start.

Next. How about problem students? Can we come up with some way to deal with that? As I’ve said, I’d like to get them out of the regular schools. I’d also like to fund programs outside the regular school to offer them some kind of a “second chance”. Can that be point four on the Grassroots Motorsports plan for education reform?

fast_eddie_72:

The first post on page 2 of this thread (before you were participating), I predicted this thread would become a train wreck, because of an inability to focus on a subject.

I think it has proven quite accurate.

The thread started about money, politics, education, and the relationship of these 3.

I realize there are many things than can be talked about under the subject of education, but you are chasing a lot of rabbits.

I don't mind, but some of this stuff really doesn't have much to do with money, politics, education, and the relationship of these 3. OK, with a broad interpretation, perhaps it all does. But generally, train wreck.

Vouchers have a lot to do with money, politics, education, and the relationship of these 3. That's why they came up.

SVreX wrote: The first post on page 2 of this thread (before you were participating), I predicted this thread would become a train wreck, because of an inability to focus on a subject.

You mean back when I was looking at the title of this thread and saying "you should leave that one alone".

Shoot, I thought we were getting somewhere for a minute. No opinion on problem students in public schools?

Nope.

education....is that what they're trying to call it nowadays. That's why I failed some history papers, because I wrote what actually happened or was true instead...hmmm imagine that