Lets Discuss "Public" Education Funding

[OldGuy43]

I like to discuss "hot button" issues like this here at Easy Garden since gardeners seem to more contemplative than most;

Here in the U.S. up until the 1840's most schools were privately owned and operated. This probably worked really well, because if you didn't like the way the school was run there was a quick, easy and effective solution. You took your child out of that school, quit giving them money and sent your offspring elsewhere. With publicly funded education you take what you get. Oh sure, you can complain, but you have no direct control.

Okay, admittedly I'm not a fan of big government, and I firmly believe the free enterprise system works if left alone, but that doesn't make me wrong.

 

[Chickie'sMomaInNH]

i'm not much of a fan either of how crazy the budgets have gotten out of control. it seems that there is too much focus on money just to keep the buildings running and not for the areas that really need it-good teachers that actually teach and their supplies to help them teach. it used to be that many people would teach their own child some basics when they weren't going to school. they also taught manners and common sense at home. now parents think everything should be taught and handled through the school system, or they complain when other things are taught in the school they think should be left at home! schools and government can't make everyone happy all at one time.

every time our state says they need to lower their budgets they take away more from each city/town but aren't giving it directly back. they have lessened the amount they give back to each school district too and that puts more of a burden onto the local gov't offices to take in more tax they say will go to those school budgets.

i'm waiting for the day when all classes will be taught at home over the computer or in small learning hubs that don't need a full staff to service them.

 

[bobm]

Isn't it interesting that our taxes are always going UP to fund our always underfunded school budgets , however the basic knowledge ( not music , movie, or video games) gained by many of our current graduating high school students do not even come close to what a typical 6th grade student gained prior to 1950 as evidenced by comparable test scores for today. Isn't it also interesting that my 13 year old grandson ( my daughter's kids)helps his classmates acrually learn and understand the day's lessons that their teacher didn't come across clear to them since kindergarden? Isn't it interesting that my 11 year old granddaghter corrects her classmates' daily homework as well as quizes and tests for her teachers for the last 3 years ? Isn't it interesting that my 5 year old grandson ( my son's son in another State) is now following a similar path in his kindergarden. He is at the top of his class and helps several of his classmates. I wonder why !!!

 

[Ridgerunner]

This probably worked really well, because if you didn't like the way the school was run there was a quick, easy and effective solution. You took your child out of that school, quit giving them money and sent your offspring elsewhere

If only that were true. More often they just quit going to school.

i'm waiting for the day when all classes will be taught at home over the computer or in small learning hubs that don't need a full staff to service them

A couple of different responses since you gave two options. First, who provides the computer and who gets the child to sit down and do it? Do you honestly believe all parents are going to do that if its going to be done at home? Even the parents that care have to make a living.

Small hubs? The idea of the big schools is mass production. Its more cost effective to run them through big schools. I didnt say they all learn, just its an attempt to save money.

I think it started when it was decided that all kids should go to school instead of a lot staying home to work on the farm. I think thats what OldGuy is talking about. Before it was required that all kids go to school, the parents that wanted their kid sot go to school bad enough made it happen but the rest didnt bother. The ones that went were the ones where the parents cared so they made it mean something for their kids.

If you mandate that all kids have to go to school, you need to pay for it. Thats part of my philosophy. If you want something you need to pay for it. If you dont want to pay for it, you really dont want it.

Then you went from where the kids had to go to school where people actually expected them to all learn something. The kid no longer just had to show up, they had to actually do something. That made it a lot harder. Especially when the parent wasnt pushing the kid and providing back-up at home.

Then it kept growing. No Child Left Behind, for example. The thought is fine but we just cant afford that. Some kids require a whole lot of personal one-on-one help. Do you know how expensive that is?

That brings up another point. People love to compare the costs of public, private, parochial, charter, and all kinds of schools. Thats about as apples and oranges as you can get. A lot of those get to choose the students they want. The public schools have to take all the kids they dont want and try to educate them. Its not just the discipline problems but the deaf, blind, or somehow disabled, the learning impaired, all the kids that require all this special help. That special help is expensive because it is people that require a salary even if many of them dont get much money, it all adds up.

Same thing with test scores. If the public schools could pick which test scores to count, their test scores would rank up there with the private and parochial schools. That actually happens when you have a magnet school. When the top students in the public system go to a magnet school, the magnet school often beats the pants off the private schools when they compete academically.

We want to educate every kid. We cant afford to educate every kid with a decent education. Im not ready to say we just educate some of them and throw the others away as trash. That just goes against the grain. Ive worked with a lot of kids, at school, the playground, and Boy Scouts. I know some of those really hard to educate kids are going to turn out to be good people that work hard and are really solid productive citizens. Ive seen that at high school reunions on how some kids turned out.

I could go on about how I think some things are being done wrong but Ive probably pushed enough buttons. Besides, I really dont have a solution.

 

[digitS']

Just imagine if we begin talking about taxation policy on a gardening forum. Someone would be very correct in clicking the "notify" button in short order.

I don't know that I can go back to 1840 very easily but I have been reading a little about William Clark, lately. This is the Clark of Lewis & Clark fame. He was the youngest brother of George Rogers Clark, the American military leader. Theirs was a prominent family but not especially well-heeled and William Clark was shy about his literacy in writing a journal about the the crossing of the continent during America's early years.

In another post, I quoted Meriwether Lewis. Wow! That looked a little "imaginative" for word use and spelling, also. Obviously, neither of these guys had much schooling. Certainly, given their accomplishments in life, any trouble with the language can be forgiven. Clark went on to become the governor of Missouri and I'm sure he did a fine job.

Washington State led the way in 1895 with what was called "The Barefoot Schoolboy Act" to fund (and require) public education. Education of our young people was far from universal in the 19th century. Here is a quote from the National Assessment of Adult Literacy (yes, that's a federal government program [click]): "The proportion of young people enrolled in school remained relatively low in the last half of the 19th century. Although enrollment rates fluctuated, roughly half of all 5- to 19-year-olds enrolled in school . . . enrollment rates for blacks . . . 34 percent in 1880."

Okay, so less than half our children went to school in the late 19th century - any school. I don't think it is likely that we can improve the education of our young people now by returning to what was happening 100-150 years ago. Interest in finding new ways is certainly a good thing altho' the "political" nature of such a discussion can quickly result.

Steve

 

[journey11]

From census.gov...

Public school systems spent an average of $10,499 per pupil in fiscal year 2009, a 2.3 percent increase over 2008, according to data released today by the U.S. Census Bureau. Public schools in New York spent more than any other state or state equivalent, with $18,126 per pupil in 2009. The District of Columbia ($16,408), New Jersey ($16,271), Alaska ($15,552) and Vermont ($15,175) had the next-highest spending. (See table 11 [PDF].)

I just wish I could get a voucher...some of my own tax money back...to purchase my $600 homeschool curriculum for my kid. That seems fair enough, since I am saving them over $10,000/yr to do it myself?

 

[OldGuy43]

Actually, what I'm thinking of is the days of everyone who wanted their kids to get an education got together, built a school house and the school master was fed at different families homes on a rotating basis as part of his pay. Talk about direct control of cost versus result that was it.

I remember being told by one fellow how much of a better education he'd gotten because he'd went to a parochial school. Of course I just had to point out to him that we were both standing in the same ditch with a shovel in our hands.

 

[Ridgerunner]

That seems fair enough, since I am saving them over $10,000/yr to do it myself

Thats an example of the apples and oranges I was talking about. How much of that $10,000 average went to the average student and how much went to fund the special needs students? You might find that the cost for the average student was a lot less.

Of course I just had to point out to him that we were both standing in the same ditch with a shovel in our hands

I almost fell out of my seat on that one. That was funny. Id have loved to see his face to see if he was clever enough to get it.

Id kind of like to see something close to the British system. I think the Japanese do something similar but Im not real familiar with the Japanese system. At a certain point the kids have to take a test. Depending on the score, some kids would go on the college track. The others go on the trades or apprenticeship track. If they qualify for college the education is pretty cheap. But the thing is they have to earn it by passing that test. Its been a few decades but if I remember right, the test score even told them which college they might qualify for.

 

[Smart Red]

I just wish I could get a voucher...some of my own tax money back...to purchase my $600 homeschool curriculum for my kid. That seems fair enough, since I am saving them over $10,000/yr to do it myself?

Here in Wisconsin you can. I have a neighbor with 12 children. They home school their children to the tune of $1700 per child per year. The father mentioned that he needed one more child to take him through to Social Security. Yup! Make that now 13 children.

Dad does work enough to make his SS quarters, but that's about all he chooses to do with his own business. It would be nice if the children were actually getting an education worth $1700, but alas, from what I've seen they have no schedule, no accountability, and little incentive to learn on their own.

Love, Smart Red

 

[thistlebloom]

Yes, there are certainly plenty of bad examples of home schoolers to hold up if you want to discredit the movement. And I suppose many in the government education field would highlight those. But the vast majority of parents home educating their children are doing a superlative job.

There's a brief article from U.S News that gives a general synopsis and focuses on one student in particular if you're interested.
http://www.usnews.com/education/hig...12/06/01/home-schooled-teens-ripe-for-college

And here's a quote from that article:

Students coming from a home school graduated college at a higher rate than their peers66.7 percent compared to 57.5 percentand earned higher grade point averages along the way, according to a study that compared students at one doctoral university from 2004-2009.

There are dozens of studies, and hundreds of examples of home educated youngsters succeeding. I personally never wanted anything from the government to assist me, I'm not eager for those strings.