Are You A Clear, Unambiguous And Unapologetic Supporter Of Public Education?

[Dinger]

Count me as a yes.


Yes, I borrowed this from Nikki Stone1. Thank you Nikki!

[leftstreet]

1. K&R

[Dinger]

2. Thank You. I Do Appreciate It lefststreet

Gives me a little hope.:)

[proud2BlibKansan]

3. Damn straight I am

And for the record, I was educated in private schools. But from an early age, I was taught that a vibrant public education system was important to every community.

I also oppose alternative teacher certification programs. Haven't seen one yet that's worth a damn.

[Dinger]

5. *Hugs*

:hug: :yourock:

[rurallib]

4. Put that way, no. There are some problems that can't be ignored

but the system is far from the trash the GOP makes it out to be.

[Caliman73]

123. I don't think that the statement and a desire for reform are mutually exclusive.

You can be an unambiguous, unapologetic and clear supporter, and still demand to fix the serious problems that do plague public education. I think that the statement serves to shape how the reforms are undertaken and are not a statement of leaving things as they are.

[liberal N proud]

6. I want to hear from those who voted NO!

NO?

[FBaggins]

53. I think I'm a "yes", but you tell me

These kind of questions always have a bite to them. That is... we all have somewhat different assumptions about what complete support looks like. So I haven't answered yet... you tell me whether I'm a yes.

I think that public schools should be WELL funded. I think that good teachers should be so well paid that the best college students don't feel they have to sacrifice and decide between a calling and the ability pay off the college loans. The decision of a great math student between engineering and teaching should be what she wants to do with her life.

I don't have a problem with some competition as long as the public schools have the resources to compete. I'm open to all kinds of experimentation and lots of local control. If some county comes up with a winning formula, then their kids will get better educations... businesses will want to locate there for the stronger workforce... parents will want to move there for the better education for their kids and the jobs those companies provide. This means that property values go up and property tax income increases... allowing the county to spend more on education and afford to attract the better teachers.

I can't stand grade inflation. I think a "c" should mean that you're a decent, but unremarkable, student and an "A" ought to mean something exceptional. I think there should be a much wider range of curriculum options. It's a shame everyone reads largely the same books at the same grade level (and that likely every 9th grade english class in the school is reading the same book).

I don't assume that schools/teachers are necessarily good at what they do. When I read about a "failing school" - I'm open to the possibility that they don't have enough resources... or the teachers aren't up to the task... or the school and/or county administration has any number of problems... or the county elected the wrong people.. or the parents aren't living up to their responsibilities... or the kids are simply too severely disadvantaged... or any number of other problems.

[tonysam]

7. Yes for the ideal of public education--no question.

This despite the fact it is being destroyed from within.

[BlueIris]

8. Yes. If I have kids, my first choice for them would be PUBLIC school, not private school.

As someone who attended both kinds in my life, I feel the former would offer them better opportunities. Even if it didn't, it needs to be resuscitated and preserved for all who want it.

[Hydra]

9. If we don't have free, good public education

Then things like reading will belong only to those who can afford it.

[Dinger]

14. Good Point Hydra

And thank you.:)

[BeFree]

10. No, here's why

If you total it up, all the spending by the governments on education ranks as the highest total of all government spending.

Therefore we know a lot of it is wasted, so I can't say that I support it without reservation.

Plus, I think there should be a heavy child tax to pay the bills.

[proud2BlibKansan]

13. No. Defense spending is a much larger expense.

Where Your Income Tax Money Really Goes FY 2009

Total Outlays (Federal Funds): $2,650 billion
MILITARY: 54% and $1,449 billion
NON-MILITARY: 46% and $1,210 billion



http://www.warresisters.org/pages/piechart.htm

[grantcart]

61. Your pie chart is about federal budgets, education is largely funded by

state budgets.

[GTurck]

213. Public education...

is the biggest slice of anyone's property taxes which are assessed by a local school district. State and federal monies are added to that to help equalize the disparities between rich districts and poorer ones and to support certain programs mandated at state and federal levels. But basically property taxes are the 900 lb gorilla of taxation.
I have worked in both public and parochial schools and one of the largest differences is that too many public school parents just don't get involved in their children's education. In the catholic school, in which I worked, it was a requirement that parents support and augment the teachers and the curriculum and volunteer or pay extra tuition for not doing so.
You cannot have an advanced liberal nation that is not literate - fully literate. What we are witnessing in the right wing and tea party phenomenon are people who, for whatever reason, did not become fully literate and are unable to understand a world not cut down to their size.

[FBaggins]

216. You are largely correct

Except that not every state and/or locality funds from property taxes to the same extent.

But that's still a good proxy. If you're in a county that funds largely with property taxes, then you can compare your state income tax to your federal income tax to your property taxes. There's a good change that the property tax bill is about how much of your taxes are going to k-12 education.

it was a requirement that parents support and augment the teachers and the curriculum and volunteer or pay extra tuition for not doing so.

Man I love that idea. I wish it could be implemented in public schools (and I think it HAS in some experiments)... but there are some problems with that.

Just as private schools do not draw from the same pool of students as public schools (due to selection, higher costs, whatver)... so too the parents are not the same across the board. IOW, the kids who are often most in need of the benefits a strong public education brings... are not the kids whose parents have the inclination/ability to be of such help.

[Quantess]

15. ???

"If you total it up, all the spending by the governments on education ranks as the highest total of all government spending."

How did you dream up that idea?

[Dinger]

21. LOL, + 1,000,000

Snap!

[BeFree]

25. Read it somewhere

Point is that property taxes, state and federal taxes grabbed for education total up to the largest grab and expenditure of all governments, local, state, and federal combined.

[blondeatlast]

30. "Read it somewhere." Believed it without question. That's kind of sad, really. nt

[BeFree]

46. And it had addition

And it had the totals, all added up, and all the education taxes and expenditures were higher than defense spending!! Imagine that!!

[FBaggins]

48. Don't know but assume it's false is pretty sad too, no? n/t

[FBaggins]

32. Actually... Befree is closer than you might think

Let me see what data I can find.

[proud2BlibKansan]

99. We spend more on defense

That was my original claim. And that would be correct.

[FBaggins]

101. Actually... it's all in how you score it.

We don't spend more on defense on an ongoing basis by traditional account means. You cam play games with the numbers to be sure.. and we spend more on defense THIS year than on k-12 education...

but my point was more that befree's point was not as ridiculous as you might assume on first blush.

I haven't found college costs yet, but if you include them it's likely that public spending on education is quite a bit higher than defense.

[BeFree]

105. Thanks

Glad to see an open mind on DU. Ya know someone who doesn't have a knee-jerk reaction like some of the ignored posters here.

You're my favorite type of member, and not because it appears you may agree with me, but because you actually think before replying.

[FBaggins]

109. LOTS of open minds on DU

The only question is "open to what?"

DU is full of members who believe things passionately. Let's face it... the average Joe just doesn't pay as much attention to politics.

Believing things passionately and being Democrats does NOT guarantee that we will be passionate about the same things OR agree with each other when we are.

A thick skin is called for.

[BeFree]

110. You preaching to me?

That's funny, is ok, but funny..

Try this one on....

Be dispassionately compassionate with your compassionism.

[FBaggins]

112. Not really. I've had to grow a thicker skin

I can't tell you how many times I've been called some flavor of right-wing shill just because I don't fall as far left as others.

Just as "barely to the left of Attila the Hun" doesn't make one a conservative... being to the right of the DU center doesn't make one a republican.

Passionate people mistake facts and opinions.

I'll give you an example from education. Many years ago, there was some guy who said that african americans have a lower IQ than whites. The correct response would be to demonstrate that this wasn't the case... or to identify what in IQ testing might bias the results by race. Others simply jumped to the attack that he must be bigoted (and perhaps he was). But disagreement on facts and disagreement on policy are not the same things.

[proud2BlibKansan]

117. That guy was a scientist in California who claimed whites had larger brains

and that meant their IQs were higher.

And yes he was a bigot. It was actually a fair claim then since there was (still is) no correlation between IQ and brain size.

IIRC (I was in high school at the time) the guy was also a proponent of eugenics. So yes indeed he was a bigot.

[FBaggins]

119. He may very well have been... but that wasn't my point

It was that the correct way to respond was that the facts and/or assumptions were incorrect. Getting the FACTS wrong is not evidence of bigotry.

Now I might say that eugenics IS evidence - but then we have to face the number of liberals who have gone too far down that path themselves.

Let's use an example on the other side. Do you remember all stories bouncing around the net on the comparative IQs of the states that voted for shrub vs. the states that voted for Kerry? It was entertaining to think that even though there were more of them than there were of us... we were smarter.

Well... we probably WERE... but the study didn't show it. It was an example a really poor science.

Here's the point: If you had pointed out what bad science it was, you would be in danger of being labeled a right winger. INject a little science into the "9/11 was an inside job" discussions... or "depleted uranium is a WMD" discussions... and you will be similarly labeled.

Because advocacy too often informs our understanding of facts rather than the other way around.

[Jeff In Milwaukee]

122. You're talking about "The Bell Curve"

Co-authored by Charles Murray and Richard Herrnstein in 1994. Herrnstein had the good sense to die before the book was released, leaving Murray to deal with the avalanche of criticism -- a substantial amount of it reasoned academic discussion -- that followed it publication.

The book was junk science at its worst, and not (I might add) the best example for you to use to make your point. It's pretty much on a par with defending Holocaust Deniers.

[proud2BlibKansan]

108. Yes. I'll wait for those figures.

Not holding my breath though.

[FBaggins]

115. Glad you weren't holding your breath. Here they are

Total public spending on college-level education for 2010 looks like about $250Billion.

Total public spending on education comes in just over one trillion dollars.

Graphic data from usgovernmentspending.com over time shows that total education spending has exceeded total defense spending every year since BushI left office (and apparently not before that though it got close under Carter).

I'll see about posting charts once I'm out of the office (where I can get to a image hosting site).

[Hannah Bell]

126. washington state: total spending on ed (including higher ed) = 38% of spending.

http://www.ofm.wa.gov/budget09/summary/table02.pdf

the website you cite is run by "some guy".

[FBaggins]

131. What was your point?

States don't provide all education funding... and 38% would also represent the largest line in the state budget, wouldn't it?

As for "some guy"... I have no idea who he is or what his background is. It looks like all he did was compile data from public sources (in this case US Census figures). That looked quite convenient to me since it allows you to parse out spending at each level of government and for each type of educational expense. The "more than $500B" was from the DOE and was (IIRC) a few years old.

One thing I find interesting is that WA looks like they plan on increaseing k-12 spending over the next few years... but slashing spending on colleges. Has this caused any public response that you're seen?

[Hannah Bell]

140. the biggest line item if you include higher ed, which itself includes the running of trade schools,

museums, libraries, research facilities, clinics & medical facilities, entertainment & sports facilities, etc., i.e. public institutions whose mission is training, R&D, historical memory & culture for the general public, not just for students.

k-12 = *not* the biggest line item.

no, ed in wa isn't funded *solely* through the state, just 70% of it. 10% by the feds, leaving 20% funded at the local (county/city) level.

education in my county isn't the biggest line item.

iow, your claim is false, at least re washington state.

http://www.fundingwaschools.org/index_files/FundingStats_Funding_WA_K12_Schools.htm

wa is *not* increasing funding, we've taken big cuts.

[FBaggins]

151. A few notes

k-12 = *not* the biggest line item.

If you can only win by changing the field of play... how does that help? Nobody compared just k-12 to defense spending. It was public spending at all levels of government on education... which absolutely includes college and other post-secondary education. I merely cited k-12 because that was the easiest data to find and, alone, compared closely to defense spending.

no, ed in wa isn't funded *solely* through the state, just 70% of it. 10% by the feds, leaving 20% funded at the local

Which is quite unusual. The Census document, btw, lists the 2006-7 data as closer to 61/9/30.

education in my county isn't the biggest line item.

It absolutely is. It's just that inter-governmental transfers from the state account for the majority of that spending. (caveat - unless WA really is quite different). But I'm not sure whether you're referring to the original post (which wouldn't make sense since a pretty small proportion of your county spending goes to defense) or my statement comparing county income to education spending. Allow me to clarify. What I'm saying is that if you compare total county income to the budget for their public schools... you will usually find that they are quite comparable. In some cases, education spending in the county exceeds total county revenue (particularly if you include debt service). In your case, this is quite likely since it looks like your tax base is weighted more toward the state than the county (higher state income tax and lower property taxes than normal?).

This doesn't mean (and I didn't say) that all of the county income goes to education... just that inter-governmental transfers from the state tagged for education are usually quite close to the total of other county services (police/fire/etc).

wa is *not* increasing funding, we've taken big cuts.

You've confused the tenses. I was talking about current level vs. their estimate for a couple years down the road. Take another look at your earlier link.

[Hannah Bell]

169. as i said, higher ed has a lot more in its mandate than ed.

you made a claim, i refuted it based on stats in my state.

you tell me my state is an exception.

i don't buy it.

the figures you're looking at are pre-the last couple of crisis revisions.

[FBaggins]

182. Incorrect

I said that WA was something of an exception on the balance between state/local funding for education... and it is and I gave you an authoritative source that shows that the normal distribution is what I said it was. For the record... a 20% local funding contribution would be lower than all but four states. The 2007 data puts them a bit over 30% which moves them up to something like 9th. (edit - not that that is a better/worse comparison... either state or local funding is appropriate).

I didn't make a claim about higher ed and how much of it was college. I compared the 38% that you said was education to the other items in your link. YOU added specific higher-ed and I accepted your number... then you claimed it wasn't fair to include it? None of that bears on the point under discussion because it doesn't speak to defense spending at all. We're talking about education/defense spending at all levels and you cite that in your state 38% is for education. I was bring polite by not saying... "yes... and????"

IOW... the data you cited not only doesn't "refute" the point you replied to... it doesn't bear on it in the slightest.

[Hannah Bell]

192. it's incorrect that spending on higher ed includes functions other than ed?

it's obviously *not* incorrect if you're ever attended a public university.

For example, WSU operates a nuclear reactor & does research for agribusiness corps with cheap student labor. I know, because I did some of it.

The UW runs about six national-class museums.

Oregon Health Sciences runs a world-class medical/research center. You think their research is done just for the benefit of *students*? You're dreaming.

Oregon Health & Science University (OHSU) is a public university in Oregon with a main campus, including three hospitals, in Portland and a smaller campus in Hillsboro. It was formed in 1974 as the University of Oregon Health Sciences Center, combining state dentistry, medicine, and nursing programs into a single center. It was renamed Oregon Health Sciences University in 1981 and took its current name in 2001, as part of a merger with the Oregon Graduate Institute of Science and Technology (OGI) in Hillsboro. In addition, the university has several partnership programs including a joint PharmD Pharmacy program with Oregon State University.

The main campus, located on Marquam Hill (commonly known as "Pill Hill") in the southwest neighborhood of Homestead is home to the university's medical school as well as two associated hospitals. The Oregon Health & Science University Hospital is a Level I trauma center and general hospital; Doernbecher Children's Hospital is a children's hospital which specializes in pediatric medicine and care of children with long-term illness. The university maintains a number of outpatient primary care facilities including the Physician's Pavilion at the Marquam Hill campus as well as throughout the Portland metropolitan area.

The OHSU campus sits atop Marquam Hill.The University also has a campus in Hillsboro, at the site of the former OGI. This campus specializes in graduate-level science and engineering education, and is located in the heart of Oregon's Silicon Forest. Since 1998, the university has controlled the Oregon National Primate Research Center, located adjacent to OGI in Hillsboro.

With the Marquam Hill campus running out of room for expansion, beginning in 2003 OHSU announced plans to expand into the South Waterfront District, formerly known as the North Macadam District. The expansion area is along the Willamette River in the South Portland neighborhood to the east of Marquam Hill and south of the city center. The newly-constructed Center for Health & Healing earned LEED Platinum certification in February 2007, becoming the largest health care center in the U.S. to achieve that status. As existing surface streets were deemed insufficient to connect the two campuses, the new Portland Aerial Tram was built as the primary link between them and opened December 1, 2006. Controversy surrounded the costs of the tram<1>, which nearly quadrupled from initial estimates. Construction of the tram was funded largely by OHSU ($40 million, 70%), with contributions from the city of Portland ($8.5 million, 15%) and developers and landowners in the South Portland neighborhood.

On January 8, 2008, OHSU announced that it will establish a research institute at the Florida Center for Innovation at Tradition in the Tradition community, Port St. Lucie, Florida. The institute eventually will employ 200 workers. Institute scientists will study infectious diseases of the elderly, AIDS and other infectious diseases and viruses. OHSU will work out of the adjacent Torrey Pines Institute for Molecular Studies until its own center is completed. A $117.9 million financial incentive package from the state of Florida secured OHSU’s commitment.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oregon_Health_&_Science_University


"Construction of the tram was funded largely by OHSU ($40 million, 70%)"

"Education" spending.

[FBaggins]

195. No... It's incorrect to pretend that that was ever relevant to the discussion

You them go on to demonstrate a point I never disputed. YOU were the one who comingled them and I accepted your figure. Either way didn't bear on the larger topic

[Hannah Bell]

200. It's relevant to the question of what counts as education spending.

Depending on the state, higher ed is 33-60% of education spending.

The larger question: Do we spend more on ed than on the military?

"If you total it up, all the spending by the governments on education ranks as the highest total of all government spending."

This was the original claim.

What counts as ed is indeed connected to how we divide the spending. For example, military research is one of the missions of research universities.

My other alma mater:

http://healthlinks.washington.edu/rfs/talks/GFLMay03.html

In fiscal year (FY) 2002, the University of Washington was awarded $45,788,541 from the Department of Defense or 6% of the UW's total grants and awards.

5% of that was from the Dept. of Ed. But the other federal grants are included in the higher ed budget as well.

Ed spending, or military?


PS: You're wrong on Oregon, too.

[FBaggins]

207. Sure... but you're the only one debating that.

It was YOUR data point and I merely accepted it. You're debating with yourself. I think it's pretty clear that most of those things DO "count" as education spending. But that's just the "games" I talked about several times.

It really doesn't impact the discussion because we've documented both the total spending on k-12 nationally and the defense spending. K-12 is just a fraction below defense so all we've needed to see was that college (by whatever measure) more than made up the gap. Unless you're claiming that the VAST majority of dollars labeled "college" or "tertiary" were not actually education expenditures... there's no point arguing around the margins. Whether it's $250 Billion or $125B... or just the 75B that someone else claimed (inexplicably)... they're all greater than the gap between documented defense and k-12 spending.

This was the original claim. What counts as ed is indeed connected to how we divide the spending.

Certainly... and we've gone round and round on what COULD/should be counted in each category. If the interlocutor wants to adjust one reported total... it EASY since LOADS of things can be accounted for each way. For instance... you mention education dollars that might just as easily be counted as military. What about all the training people in the military receive? A great deal of it is "education" (and then there's the GI Bill). Which bucket do those dollars "count" toward? If you attend a service academy (West Point, Annapolis, etc)... are those hundreds of thousands of dollars spent as "military" or "education"?

Yes, the OP (of this part of the thread) claimed that one was larger than the other. But my point wasn't to prove that directly because (as I said from the beginning) too many games like this can be played. Which one is greater depends not on the actual spending... but on which bucket you drop it in. What I was saying was that those people who posted back to him/her that the statement was ridiculous were mistaken. It's a far more reasonable statement than they assumed. By the STANDARD means of accounting for these things (regardless of whether you agree with those definitions or not)... education spending is actually higher than Defense.

You don't have to accept that the standard accounting is the best way to apportion what counts as "education"... you just need to accept that it IS the standard... and therefore the original point IS entirely reasonable. Your debate ceases to be with the OP (who was correct by very reasonable standards) and becomes debate with the people who decided what the standard accounting should be. I have said multiple times that there is no point in debating that because either "side" can play with the numbers to say anything they want.


One side can say that kids who go into the military out of high school and spend a few years "being all they can be" gain lots of job skills (that's part of how they advertise, isn't it?). Then the military pays for part of college... then these kids get much better jobs than they would have been able to get just going from high school to the workforce. So lets count ALL of the military spending as education... right?

Then the other side says too many of our school-age kids are REALLY just being trained up to become cogs in the military-industrial complex... so much of the spending you THINK is "education" is REALLY "military".

The point is that this gets us nowhere. We can play that game all day long. It doesn't add information about whether the OP's comments was reasonable and/or at least arguably correct. It was.


PS: You're wrong on Oregon, too.

Where did I say anything about Oregon to be wrong? If I state that the national average for per capita income is a certain amount... how do you think you're doing anything but looking foolish by going state by state and looking for anything else? You DO understand the concept of a national average... right?

[proud2BlibKansan]

156. Your source is a right wing site

Didn't take much snooping around till I found this:

Tea Party Fact Sheet

A briefing from usgovernmentspending.com
http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/tea_party.php

Lots of other incorrect info there. How did you find this site? Hanging with teabaggers? LOL

[FBaggins]

157. As I already said

I had no idea who the author was... I just found a site that consolidated other information that came from the Census.

I have since provided you links to the actual Census data. Is your only response REALLY going to be that the facts were also cited by someone we don't like?

Ironic that we just got done discussing the difference between facts and advocacy.

[proud2BlibKansan]

158. No you didn't provide me links to the actual Census data

You posted that in a reply to someone else. And that poster proved you wrong.

Interesting you would mention facts and advocacy after posting a link to a site the teabaggers use for their 'facts'.

[FBaggins]

159. Can you really post that with a straight face??

It was by no means proven wrong and it's ridiculous to pretend otherwise.

Sorry if it wasn't directly to you... But you clearly saw it... And have yet to admit your error.

How long do you expect to maintain that the Sun is NOT a star just because someone said it on a rw site?

[proud2BlibKansan]

160. The information is wrong

and this has been proven to you over and over in this thread. Sorry you don't see that.

Have a pleasant evening.

[FBaggins]

163. I note that you can't say WHAT was wrong

Very clever

I begin to suspect that you don't live in the same reality as everyone else.

The ONLY documented data provided showed military spending at bare
billions above k-12 spending... The gap was WELL below college expenses.

How about put up or...?

[Hannah Bell]

171. The census bureau isn't a normal source for serious budget or economic data, that's why.

& if you think about *how* they get their info, you'll know why.

[FBaggins]

176. Do you just make this stuff up as you go along?

They are THE source for such data. They get it directly from the respective localities/states.

There is no source closer to "primary" that would have all three levels. It's ridiculous to say they aren't a "usual source" . Who else would you imagine using??? CBO gets their data on state/local spending from the census...

[proud2BlibKansan]

212. How many DUers have to point out to you that you are mistaken?

You are just being silly now.

[FBaggins]

215. Just one

as long as they can back it up.

You can't. And refuse to even try.

Hint - Repeating "you're wrong" scores no debating points.

[Hannah Bell]

170. not only "some guy," but a teabagger guy to boot.

[FBaggins]

180. Oh for heaven's sake!

I went looking for a source that allowed me to parse census data without having to download a bunch of Census xls files and make the graphs myself. I found one that it turns out is run by a RWer, but the moved on to get the actual census data.

You and others here have been corrected on this clearly several times. Continuing such BS is only evidence that you're uncomfortable with the weakness of your position and must resort to dishonesty.

I swear that if I cited a teabag website saying the sun would rise in the East tomorrow and then backed it up with a link to the Naval Observatory's website you guys would insist that there is no sun and anyone who thinks so if a right wing shill.

[Hannah Bell]

191. The guy's a winger. Not just a winger, but an *extreme* winger.

Maybe you'd better go through the data yourself instead of relying on other people's analyses.

Too much trouble? Too bad, don't expect me to rely on a site from someone to the right of ayn rand.

[FBaggins]

196. That's fine... I accept that... It's irrelevant.

I DIDN'T "rely on" any analysis and I DID check the figures myself AND gave you the link to verify it.

Why are you clinging to this strawman???

[FBaggins]

58. Ok...here's what I found

Not counting public spending at the college level (which certainly counts), we spend over $500 Billion a year on public education.

On an ongoing basis (meaning we don't count a trillion dollars in stimulus for one year... or a couple hundred million for a war or three) that's the single largest expense.

What many don't realize is that federal spending on k-12 education is really only a small portion of total education spending. In my experience (specifically - credit analysis for counties' financing requests - and we're only talking the states I've seen), most counties spend almost ALL of their income on their schools. Now... let me clarify that. Total county budgets for education roughly equal county tax receipts. Counties also receive transfers from the state and some federal dollars. This income (very roughly) tends to equal total county spending on "everything else".

[BeFree]

60. 500 Billion

Plus colleges.

But we have a 650 Billion dollar defense budget.

I remember now that when I read the figures it was during the early Clinton years and defense budget was smaller, much smaller then.

Thanks for doing this, I was afraid I'd be up all night trying to get the current #'s. I owe ya one FBaggins.

And some of you owe me an apology, eh? That was some nasty shite.

[FBaggins]

64. You can always play games with such things

650Billion includes (I'm reasonably sure) the money for two wars. I disagree with the prior administration's game of trying to take such spending off-budget, and it certainly feels like an unending expense these days... but we're presumably talking on an ongoing basis.

Other's will include large other expenditures as "defense" spending... If, for instance, you think that there would be little to no debt were it not for military spending... you can "count" interest on the debt as a military expense. What about Social Security expenditures for career military retirees? Their benefit was funded, at least in theory, by income earned in the military.. so you may count that SS check as a military expenditure. You can easily get way above $500Billion with such tricks... but you can play the same games with education spending.

The long and the short of it is that nobody has to accept one accounting over another... it depends on their own perspective... but it's certainly not unreasonable to believe that public education at all levels costs more (and should) government expenditure (at all levels) than any other single item.

[proud2BlibKansan]

98. You were wrong and you want an apology? Huh?

We spend more on defense. You just said that. Why in the world would you expect an apology? You're the one who should be apologizing.

[FBaggins]

104. We spend more THIS year.

But if we spend more on education three years out of four... the reaction to his statement was unwarranted.

Now... this business about making people pay for public education as some sort of a head tax on kids... THAT I can't get myself to agree with at all.

[proud2BlibKansan]

107. We have ALWAYS spent more on defense than on education

Yes, including state and local taxes. Always. Going back as far as I can remember. We value our military industrial complex more than our children.

No, I don't agree with the head tax either. That's nuts.

[FBaggins]

111. That's simply not true - Sorry

I understand the priorities that are behind the pie chart you posted... and it's an interesting position... but it plays too many games with reality to twist so many non-military expenditures as suddenly military.

I can play the same game with education expenditures and and easily come up with an even larger figure.

The simple fact is that if you add up actual expenditures that are CLEARLY (not "arguably") defense department and add up all the expenditures are all levels for education (primary/secondary/tertiary)... education wins.

As it should.

Doesn't mean we're spending enough... it CERTAINLY doesn't mean that we're spending it correctly. But we ARE spending it.

[Jeff In Milwaukee]

124. Absent a link to an authoritative source...

Your $500 billion ranks right up there with a unicorn sighting. How much of that alleged $500 billion is spent on school lunch programs? School health programs?

And does the amount we spend on Defense (which may or may not be higher than $500 billion because you don't tell us what that amount is - OR PROVIDE A FRIGGIN' LINK!!!) include the costs of running the Veteran's Administration? Or the cost of cleaning up the contamination caused by weapons production? And does it include the "foreign aid" sent to other countries in the form of tanks and aircraft?

And when the government provides billions in research funding to a university to create new weapons systems, are you calling that an educational cost or a military cost?

[FBaggins]

129. Were there any authoritative links to the contrary?

Of course that's not a unicorn siting is it?

I've given a couple sources... and the number is actually quite a bit higher than $500Billion.

How much of that alleged $500 billion is spent on school lunch programs? School health programs?

Does it matter? Are you saying that they aren't an important part of providing an education to kids from poor families? Do you think that the defense budget includes only bullets and not the cost of MREs?

And does the amount we spend on Defense (which may or may not be higher than $500 billion because you don't tell us what that amount is - OR PROVIDE A FRIGGIN' LINK!!!) include the costs of running the Veteran's Administration? Or the cost of cleaning up the contamination caused by weapons production? And does it include the "foreign aid" sent to other countries in the form of tanks and aircraft?

Some of it. But that's the accounting "games" I was talking about in other posts. Some people want to count interest on the debt as military spending since we wouldn't have as large a debt if it weren't for wars. Or some of Social Security because it pays money to people whose FICA-taxed income was from the military. Some want all of the State Department budget to be counted too... or all of DHS. VA spending sure seems like "military", but what percentage of those patients would be medicare/medicaid now if it weren't for the VA? Heck... if we pass universal healthcare and provide one system for everyone... does that mean that we just cut 80Billion in military spending?

The same kinds of games can be played with education spending as well. A VERY large portion of county debt-funding is for interest on loans for school construction... but that's not usually counted. Does education spending include the proportion of Social Security paid to former teachers?

Heck... I can come up with Trillions! Democrats have often scored as "spending" tax cuts to the wealthy because that's money that WOULD have been coming into government coffers that now doesn't come in. By THAT measure, our failure to properly fund and manage public education has cost us trillions of dollars in lost productivity and income taxes over decades. There would be no public debt (so all those debt payments now get scored to education right?).

Let's score all of our welfare expenses to education too. If we did a better job of educating out kids there would be far fewer people who need it. How about law enforcement? A huge percentage of our criminals are dropouts from school. All the jails/police/courts have to count half of their expenses to education now, right?

[Jeff In Milwaukee]

132. You have no intention of providing a link to your source, is that it?

Until I see something from the CBO or some other such source, you're blowing smoke. I'm not saying that I necessarily disagree with you, but until I see a reputable source of information, your argument is a non-starter.

[FBaggins]

133. Sooo... why isn't the opposing position a non-starter for you?

Not that I "necessarily" think that your bias is showing. :)

I can only spend so much time on something like this at work without wasting my employer's time. I'm not going to do that. The numbers lined up reasonably well with other sources (e.g., how much we spend per child times the number of school-aged kids).

[Jeff In Milwaukee]

135. Because everything you're saying is unsubstantiated...

You're expecting me to simply assume that the figures you're providing are accurate and factual. And when the point of debate is "Which Costs More: Education or Defense" the accuracy of the statistics is pretty much the be-all and end-all of the argument.

[FBaggins]

137. The point is that the other side of the argument has not provided anything either.

And now I have if you read my last post.

But I'll go one better since you tweaked me (Now I have to work late tonight to pay back my employer) :)

http://www2.census.gov/govs/school/07f33pub.pdf

Turn to table 1 (page 14 of the pdf).

Total expenditures for elementary/secondary education nationwide for the 2006/7 school year = $560 Billion. With adjustment for 2010, that matches the chart I saw at the "some guy" website and validates that his data is coming from the US Census.

[Jeff In Milwaukee]

141. $560 billion for education in 2007

$630 billion for defense spending.

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines07/0320-05.htm

And since we're counting state AND federal costs for education, I think we should do the same for military spending. That being said, the State of Wisconsin is spending $40 million this year on the National Guard and that doesn't include the tax credits that the state provides to veterans and their survivors (edit: those credits alone comes to $6 million). Last time I checked, we have fifty states that are likely shouldering similar costs.

http://www.doa.state.wi.us/debf/docview.asp?budid=41

[FBaggins]

145. Not "education"... Just k-12

College expenditures are another $250-300B

Far more than the state component of NatGuard spending (which is really more than just
"military")

[Jeff In Milwaukee]

149. Not even close....

Comes to about 75 billion.

http://nces.ed.gov/programs/coe/2009/section5/table-rep-1.asp

[FBaggins]

152. Don't have time to look for an error...

or what the variation is...but my public school math says that 75 billion is more than the 32 billion difference you found. :)

[FBaggins]

155. At first glance your math isn't so good.

Federal, state, and local grants for operating expenses (2006-7) are listed as 46.6 billion and federal,state, and local non operating revenues are listed as $103.3 Billion for public institutions alone.

That's before we look at private institutions or consider things like the fact that "tuition" includes at least $17 Billion in Pell grants this year (don't know 2006) and states make grants as well.


Now... I did get one question wrong on the math SATs... but I'm reasonably certain that adds up to more than 75B. :-)

[FBaggins]

134. Here's one for the $500 Billion

http://www.census.gov/Press-Release/www/releases/archives/education/010125.html

214.6 Billion came from localities (counties/parishes/cities) in 2005 for elementary/secondary education.

My experience says that roughly 45% of education funding comes from the local level... 45% from the state... and 10% from the federal government. That would come to a total of about $475 billion for 2005. It's logical to assume that it has gone up more than 5% in four years.

The $214B did not include 40+ billion in school construction spending.

[Jeff In Milwaukee]

138. From the Stockhold International Peace Research Institute

$507 Billion in 2005. And once again, it begs the question regarding how much of the Department of Energy's budget went to nuclear programs that were weapons-based. And how much of the State Department's budget for foreign aid was really just military aid in disguise.

In any case, unless my public school mathematics training fails me, I'm pretty certain that $507 billion is more than $475 billion.

http://www.sipri.org/yearbook/2006/files/SIPRIYB0608a.pdf

[FBaggins]

139. That's a source comparable to CBO or the Census?

They listed their source as... themselves at the bottom of the document.

In any case, unless my public school mathematics training fails me, I'm pretty certain that $507 billion is more than $475 billion.

Yes... your public school math training failed you. Unless you:

a) Don't consider public expenditures for post-secondary education to be education spending or
b) Think they total less than the difference ($32B) that year. :-)

I've already dealt with the accounting games that argue for assigning other spending into the "military" bucket. Some are better arguments than others, but the same can be made for education.

[Hannah Bell]

143. your source = "some guy's" website.

[FBaggins]

147. No it wasn't

It was "some guy" who provided a graphical chart interface for US Census data.

I have also provide at least two links to actual Census documents... so it wouldn't be quite honest to continue to refer to my source as "some guy".

[Hannah Bell]

172. yes, it was. & census isn't an authoritative source for ed spending.

think about it.

[FBaggins]

181. Lol!

"Think about it" she says... without applying any actual thought.

You might... for instance... provide a better source?

[Jeff In Milwaukee]

148. If you read the whole report

You'll note that their sources come from multiple agencies, and they themselves cite the difficulty in determining what costs are military and what costs are not. They use an average figure, noting that some estimates (and they provide the source documenation) clock in at up 50% higher.

With regard to federal and state aid to education, the difference in tax collections over the lifetime of a college educated person vs. a person with no college education more than pays for the initial investment.

http://usgovinfo.about.com/library/weekly/aa072602a.htm

[FBaggins]

154. And the "some guy" site ALSO lists his sources.

These "guys" (whose motivations I absolutely do not question) are dealing with even larger challenges (since they're looking internationally)

With regard to federal and state aid to education, the difference in tax collections over the lifetime of a college educated person vs. a person with no college education more than pays for the initial investment.

I completely agree!

But that's part of the "games" that works against the opposing argument. How much tax revenue are we sacrificing due to inadequate education results? You could argue trillions!

[Jeff In Milwaukee]

161. My "some guy" website...

is from an organization that's been around for more than 40 years and has staff of 50 employees in addition to an eight-member Governing Board that includes several former staff members at the United Nations. It was founded by, and continues to be funded by, the Swedish Government

Your "some guy" website = Christopher Cantrill. Here's the bio from his website:

MY NAME IS CHRISTOPHER CHANTRILL and I am a member of the international capitalist conspiracy. Both my grandfathers owned and operated import/export businesses in the early twentieth century, one in St. Petersburg, Russia, where my father was born, and the other in Kobe, Japan, where my mother was born.

I was born in India and raised and educated in England. I immigrated to the United States in 1968 and worked for many years designing and implementing utility control systems and software in Seattle.

Despite 35 years living in Seattle, I instinctively revolted against the suffocating left-coast culture of the Soviet of Washington, and came to revere the four great Germans who helped inspire the Reagan revolution: Ludwig von Mises, F.A. Hayek, Leo Strauss, and Eric Voegelin.

I have written for Liberty, FrontPageMag.com, and The American Thinker. My forthcoming book Road to the Middle Class celebrates the self-governing culture of the United States in which enthusiastic Christianity, education, mutual aid, and living under law have taught generations of immigrants to rise from indigence in the countryside to a life of competence and prosperity in the city

So let's recap:

My source = Respected International Agency
Your source = Right-wing Lunatic

[FBaggins]

164. Approaching dishonesty on your part

The US census folks have been around a bit more than 40 years... And there are
one or two more of them working there. They are not rw lunatics and heir data comes directly from the source (so it would be easily debunked if wrong)

[Jeff In Milwaukee]

165. On my part?

You're quoting a teabagger website that skews census data (i.e., lies, damned lies, and statistics).

What's more, you keep trying to prove something that has been repeatedly shown to be false.

What's more, gross spending on any line item is a pointless comparison. Why?

Because if you spend $1 billion on a bomber, how much revenue does it produce? (Answer: None. It costs about $30K per hour to keep a B-1 bomber in the air). You spend $1 billion to provide a four-year education to more than 12,000 people (at $80K per year) and you produce millions in additional lifetime income (which is taxable) and billions in economic activity (which is also taxable). According data from the State of Virgina, every tax dollar spent on education generates $13 in economic activity and $1.33 in taxes. In other words, and not to put to fine a point on this subject, spending on education ultimately pays for itself.

If you think there's no qualitative difference between military spending and educational spending, you're an idiot.

[FBaggins]

166. Yes... Apparently on your part.

You continue to repeat that my source is this rw guy... Yet I have cited (and linked) direct US Census data more than once (and both numbers were consistent). Facts don't cease to be facts when the wrong guy repeats them. You also claim that something has been "repeatdly shown to be wrong" when it has been repeatedly CLAIMED to be wrong but has by no means been "shown".

I agree that education spending is justified (which doesn't mean that none of it is ever poorly
spent)... but that doesn't mean that it isn't spent.

As for "idiot"... I note that you can only debate strawmen. Nobodyis saying that we SHOULD spend more on the
military or less on education and noodyms making amqualitative
comparison. This is simply correcting a factual error. Someone said we
spend more on education in this country than the defense budget... Others not only disagreed but thought the notion was laughable. In reality it is a factual statement.


Edit - dang iPhone keyboard and spellcheck :)

[FBaggins]

167. More on accounting games

I love the notion that no education spending should count because if we didn't spend it we would have far less tax income... But those are the games I've mentioned here several times. It's telling that such games NEED to be played because the straight-up data simply doesn't support the position. The argument is ridiculous... Because both education and defense are essential government functions... So asking "what if we got rid of it?" results in spinnable results. Eliminate all historical education spending and we're a third
world country with no tax base. Eliminate all historical military spending and we save a bunch... Except we're saving it for
Japan or Germany and the US has no income.

Why play such games? With no games... Straight up line-item that is officially designated for defense bs line item that is specifically designated for education... Education spending wins.

And it should. It should by lots more... But that doesn't change the facts.

[Hannah Bell]

142. in my state, 20% local, 70% state, 10% feds.

http://www.fundingwaschools.org/index_files/FundingStats_Funding_WA_K12_Schools.htm

[FBaggins]

146. Which would just make the national total larger

Since it was the local contribution that was cited.

But it's interesting to note. Does it have something to do with disparate county demographics?

Regardless... I've been able to confirm that my experience with a few states is pretty close to the national average... And the calculation based on that assumption was quite close.

[Hannah Bell]

150. because *you* & "some guy" say so? i don't think so.

[FBaggins]

153. The US Census isn't "some guy"

Sticking your head in the sand and/or covering your ears and yelling "I'm not listening" doesn't change reality.

http://www2.census.gov/govs/school/07f33pub.pdf

[Hannah Bell]

168. the us census dept isn't a good source for ed or economic stats.

[FBaggins]

179. Dead wrong... but entertaining

One person makes the statement and it fits not your understanding of facts.. but your desire to maintain a position... so someone else parrots it.

In reality, the census is THE source for consolidated education spending stats.

By all means... speculate on one that would be better. Don't say CBO... they get their data from the census. Don't say the ies National Center for Education Statistics or Depart of Ed... they get their data from the census. The "Common Core of Data" that they use is fed from the census form at the end of the link I provided. (http://www2.census.gov/govs/school/07f33pub.pdf)

On edit... My apologies... it isn't you repeating someone else's made up facts... you're just repeating yourself. Not as entertaining I'm afraid. :)

[Hannah Bell]

190. census = data collector, not data generator. they *collect* from states, not from localities.

The first authoritative source is direct data, not aggregated data.

"The Census Bureau has attempted to identify all central sources for public elementary-secondary finance data. Most of these sources exist at the state government level. Many state agencies, especially state education agencies, collect financial data for the local units within their domains.

The collection arrangements have a number of distinct advantages. First, because the Census Bureau is able to use data from state government data systems, the response burden on local school system administrators is lessened. Second, the close relationship between local school systems and state departments of education minimizes nonresponse.

LIMITATIONS OF DATA

Finance amounts presented in this report are statistical in nature and do not represent an accounting statement. Therefore, a difference between a school system's revenue and expenditure does not indicate a “budget” surplus or deficit.

Large capital outlay expenditure, debt issuance or retirement, and changes in cash and security holdings are all factors that have important influences on the balance between revenue and expenditure.

In spite of efforts to identify and resolve errors, some mistakes and inconsistencies in official reporting and processing have undoubtedly escaped detection. Other inconsistencies have been detected and are published with the caveats shown in Appendix B. They arise from the fact that each state education agency collects a different level of detail. Although states generally collect much more detail than what the Census Bureau collects, there are instances when certain states cannot provide some of the items requested. The use of different financial accounting handbooks by the state education agencies also causes inconsistencies in the data.

Effective for the FY 1992 survey, the Census Bureau requested that respondents for elementary-secondary finances report state revenue according to the following program categories: general formula assistance, compensatory and basic skills, special education, staff improvement, vocational, capital outlay/debt service, bilingual education, transportation, and school lunch. Users should be able to make valid comparisons of this detail when examining school systems within a given state.

However, because the content of state aid programs greatly varies among the states, this information may not be comparable when making comparisons between school systems in different states. For example, state monies for special education and compensatory education may be in specific categorical aid programs in one state but be part of general formula assistance in
another state.

CONCERNING DERIVED STATISTICS

Derived statistics such as per pupil expenditure and per pupil revenue are calculated using the enrollment reported on the NCES 2006-07 CCD Nonfiscal Survey. Amounts per $1000 of personal income are calculated using personal income reported on the Bureau of Economic Analysis 2006 Survey of Current Business.

An analysis based on rankings or per capita statistics can be misleading and misinterpreted because of subtle yet important differences in state and local government organization and economic structure.

For example, using total taxes or per capita taxes as a measure of tax burden on the citizens of that state can be misleading because different states use different approaches to taxation, comparing only the total taxes collected by each state is not enough to understand the economic impact of those states’ taxes; one must also understand how those taxes are collected.

Comparing taxes across states can be difficult. The Census Bureau’s statistics on tax revenue reflect taxes a state collects from activity within the state, not necessarily from its people within a state. Alaska, for instance, does not have general sale taxes or individual income taxes, but it does collect severance taxes from companies that extract oil and natural gas.

Like Alaska, Florida also does not collect individual income taxes, but unlike Alaska, Florida instead relies heavily on a general sales tax, which, because of its tourist industry, is partially supported by visitors from outside Florida. In that sense, both Alaska and Florida use “exported taxes” – taxes collected from people or organizations that may reside outside their state.

Similarly, ranking expenditures totals or comparing per capita expenditures are equally challenging since some states directly administer activities that, in other states, are undertaken by local governments, with or without state fiscal aid. The share of government sector financial totals contributed by a state government, therefore, differs materially from one state to another.

For example, comparing a state's direct expenditures on transportation programs may lead to inaccurate conclusions since all cash assistance payments to school systems may vary per state. Due to the varying content of individual state aid programs, this information should not be used to compare the fiscal commitments of the states to the objectives of the specific programs.

Thus a strict ranking or per capita analysis that does not take into account these structural relationships between the state government and the local governments within each state can lead to an invalid analysis and incorrect conclusion.

http://www2.census.gov/govs/school/07f33pub.pdf


Second, contra your claim that census data = "authoritative" source for ed financing data, Dept of Ed collects their own data series, as do other agencies.

http://nces.ed.gov/pubsearch/pubsinfo.asp?pubid=2009020

[FBaggins]

197. Did you think that made a point?

I SAID they were the best aggregator of data and you reply that they are only am aggregator???

The ONLY better option would be to link to every signgle
county/state and add it up yourself (and provide
links to each) which is of course impossible.

Unlike your claim... The reality is that the single best source to come up with a single
figure for total education spending at all levels of goverment is the one I have you.

You're also incorrect that they don't collect from localities. The state gathers the reporting from the counties, but the counties send that data in to the state using the census form I provided to you.

As for your final attempted rebuttal... You are wrong again. DOE's data on government spending a the state and local level is provided from that same census form I linked.

Take a look at your own link then select the "common core
of data" then look for their sources for "state aggregate financial data" and the same for
localities. That's from the census.

[Hannah Bell]

202. BS:

"Welcome to NCES:

The National Center for Education Statistics (NCES) is the primary federal entity for collecting and analyzing data related to education.

The primary purpose of the Digest of Education Statistics is to provide a compilation of statistical information covering the broad field of American education from prekindergarten through graduate school. The Digest includes a selection of data from many sources, both government and private, and draws especially on the results of surveys and activities carried out by the National Center for Education Statistics (NCES).

To qualify for inclusion in the Digest, material must be nationwide in scope and of current interest and value. The publication contains information on a variety of subjects in the field of education statistics, including the number of schools and colleges, teachers, enrollments, and graduates, in addition to educational attainment, finances, federal funds for education, libraries, and international education. Supplemental information on population trends, attitudes on education, education characteristics of the labor force, government finances, and economic trends provides background for evaluating education data."

http://nces.ed.gov/

[FBaggins]

205. "collected by the Governments Division of the U.S. Census Bureau"

Sigh. Note that the link I provide is from the SAME site you're using?

http://nces.ed.gov/CCD/f33agency.asp

[Hannah Bell]

206. You're confused.

The Common Core of Data (CCD) is a program of the U.S. Department of Education's National Center for Education Statistics that annually collects fiscal and non-fiscal data about all public schools, public school districts and state education agencies in the United States.

The data are supplied by state education agency officials and include information that describes schools and school districts, including name, address, and phone number; descriptive information about students and staff, including demographics; and fiscal data, including revenues and current expenditures."

Local Education Agency (School District) Finance Survey (F-33) Data

The primary purpose of the Local Education Agency (School District) Finance Survey (F-33) is:

to provide revenue and expenditure data for all school districts in the United States.

These data are *ALSO* collected by the Governments Division of the U.S. Census Bureau, and have been released as the F-33 survey. The original file is Version 1a, the revised file is Version 1b, etc. A sample of school district data were collected in school years 1990-91, 1992-93 and 1993-94.


Dept. of Ed designs the survey & collects the data from states.

Revenues and expenditures are audited after the close of the fiscal year and are then submitted to NCES by each state education agency.

Beginning with fiscal year 1990, detailed fiscal data on revenues and expenditures for all school districts providing public education to pre-kindergarten to grade 12 students have been collected.

These data can be linked to the data collected on the nonfiscal CCD Local Education Agency Universe. Student counts and amounts of debt at the beginning and end of the fiscal year are also provided.

http://nces.ed.gov/CCD/f33agency.asp

census essentially collects from ed.

[FBaggins]

208. So NOW... al you need to do

is provide SOMETHING this other data source says that it in any way different from what I just told you.

Yes... it says "these data are ALSO collected"... but please note that it's called the "F-33 data" in both cases.

Take a look at what "F-33" IS. It's the census form I linked you to.

I have no doubt that they work together in designing the form... but it's the census form... and there is no indication that the data is anything OTHER thn the SAME data. Note that it doesn't say "similar data is collected by" ???

[FBaggins]

210. The "game, set, match" moment.

Check the link below (note the source is NCES). Go to page 1 (the 11th page of the document)

http://nces.ed.gov/CCD/pdf/sdf071agen.pdf

Both NCES and the Governments Division of the U.S. Census Bureau collect public school
system finance data, and they collaborate in their efforts to gather these data. The Census Bureau
is required to collect government finance data under Title 13, U.S.C., Section 182. NCES is
authorized to collect these data by Congress through the Education Sciences Reform Act of
2002, P.L. 107-279, sec. 153 (a). The Census Bureau acts as the primary collection agent and
produces two data files: one for distribution and reporting by the Census Bureau and the other for
distribution and reporting by NCES.

As I said. NCES gets this data from the Census.

[Hannah Bell]

198. here's another state: oregon, 10% fed, 60% state, 30% local.

http://www.willamette.edu/centers/publicpolicy/projects/oregonsfuture/PDFvol6no1/oregon_education_funding.pdf

"Sources of education funds shifted from roughly 60 percent local,
30 percent state, and 10 percent federal, to 30/60/10."



2009-2011 total budget: 54 billion

k-12 budget = 6 billion (3 billion/year)
higher ed budget = 8 billion (4 billion/yr)

(The state ed budget includes ~1 billion from the feds)

State + fed ed spending = 26% of state spending
State spending only = 25% of state spending

Per the link above this = ~70% of *total* spending on ed in oregon.

The remaining theoretical 30% would come from local levies, & disproportionately from wealthier districts = 6 billion, or 3 billion/yr.

Theoretical total spending on oregon ed k-12 + higher ed = 17 billion, = 31% of state budget

Nowhere near what you claim.


http://www.oregon.gov/DAS/BAM/docs/Publications/GRB0911/B_Education.pdf

http://www.oregon.gov/DAS/BAM/docs/Publications/GRB0911/0911AllFunds.pdf

http://www.salem-news.com/articles/june232009/oregon_schools_6-22-09.php


Two states down, 48 more to go.

Your claim is baloney.

[FBaggins]

199. And yours is BS

I SAID that 20% would be 4th-5th... What do you think you prove by finding one of them?

I can tell you to check Hawaii next and save you some time... Or you could just look at the link I gave you.

[Hannah Bell]

201. So far, neither state spends the majority of combined fed, state & local funds on ed.

Not even half.

[FBaggins]

204. ??? Hannah... I've got to tell you. I'm not sure that you "get" what you're looking for or debating.

I can't remember anyone saying anything about spending a majority of fed/state/local funds so I don't see how it applies. I also don't see how that could be true. Since the fed/state/local fund proportions that we've been discussing have specifically been education spending... I don't see how it could ever be anything but 100% unless you account for borrowing separately (or there are funds coming from mars)? I'd say it's a truism that every county spends 100% of the funds they spend on education... on education.

Just FYI... the fed/state/local proportion we were talking about before you jumped in was merely my initial confirmation of a back-of-the-napkin calculation. I had said that my first guesstimate of $500B was based on anecdotal evidence of average spending per student times the number of students nationally. That's just rough work because I didn't even know whether my memory of the number of students included just public schools or was all student-age kids. The confirming data point was a government report stating the amount of money spent just by localities in the reported year. I could use that as a check on my guesstimate because I had years of experience reviewing county financials in a few states that told me that the normal breakdown of fed/state/local spending was (ballpark) 10/45/45. So that gave us a second guesstimate of total k-12 education spending which was quite close to the first guesstimate.

It was after that that I found (and provided) direct census data on both actual total dollars spent AND the fed/state/local breakdown nationally and by state. Obviously the reported total dollars confirmed the prior calculations, but I also commented that the funding breakdown nationally matched my own personal experience in a few states. I never said every state was the same so looking for variations is a waste of your time. I commented that WA was unusual when you gave a different breakdown, but I was never challenging that what you said was true... just that it didn't reflect the national averages.

There's nothing there worth getting your dander up about Hannah. Nobody is claiming that all states are the same... and going state by state looking for variations is a waste of your time because there's nothing to prove (and because I've given you a table with every state already accounted for).

[FBaggins]

130. Dupe - sorry

[Iggo]

22. You would only tax the heavy children?

That's just wrong!

:P

[liberal N proud]

29. Huh? In what alternate universe is that happening?

[BeFree]

47. Not your universe, but in the real one

Its true. Add it up and weap. In this universe, them's the facts,

[Lyric]

33. Saying that we should tax parents extra to pay for public education

is like saying we should tax poor people extra to pay for welfare. It completely ignores the reality that education, like welfare, is a public good that benefits EVERYONE, whether directly, indirectly, or both. It also imposes an additional tax burden on people who can least afford it, which is cruel, frankly. People who choose to raise children are doing us all a favor, because THEIR kids will be the ones keeping the electricity on, the water running, the roads intact, and the Social Security checks coming someday. Whether you have kids or not, you certainly benefit (and will continue to benefit) from the kids that other people have. Had you just not considered that angle of the situation, or do you honestly think that none of it matters because you just want to see the people who DARE to have children forced to pay for their eeeeevil society-supporting behavior?

:shrug:

[proud2BlibKansan]

44. +1

You always seem to get it. Thanks!

[FBaggins]

49. +1

Absolutely correct.

[BeFree]

50. Huh?

Don't tax them now so we have to tax them more later?

Because that's what you are saying to do. Give them a free ride now and later they'll be taxed like crazy to pay for excesses now.

Sorry, I never did like that setup.

And your putting on me this anti-society baggage is quite disgusting. All I want to see is a fair distribution of costs. The poor could be subsidized to a degree. But some family having twelve kids places upon all grown-ups an unfair burden of subsidizing their excess kids.

[Lyric]

52. Oh bull, and you know it.

"Don't tax them now so we have to tax them more later?"

How ridiculous. I wasn't talking about taxes, I was talking about PEOPLE. You know, the ones who actually WORK in power plants, grocery stores, Department of Highways, plumbers, carpenters, etc. Did you think that we could all stop having babies and those jobs would just go do themselves? Please, feel free to explain yourself because it *seems* like you're either being deliberately obtuse or that you just have no idea what you're talking about.

As for costs, what would the cost to society be if we DIDN'T make sure that all kids were educated? Increased unemployment, increased crime, increased infectious disease, increased teen pregnancy, ALL of which will indirectly cost the country a shitload of money. Don't throw the Duggar-like families at me as some kind of "evidence"--you're taking the rare, rare exception and trying to argue as if that's the standard we should judge by when making decisions with enormous social consequences. Most people only have a couple of kids and you know it.

But let's take your griping a bit further. Why should ANY of us have to pay for things that don't DIRECTLY benefit us? I walk everywhere, so I think people who don't walk everywhere should pay a heavy Transportation Tax on their cars, bikes, scooters, and other things with wheels that require paved roads to operate efficiently. I don't fly on airplanes or live in a city that's a terrorism target, so I think that people who DO should pay an enormous Airplane Danger tax to cover the cost of inept TSA screening and airport security that have no direct effect on MY life. I'm a monogamous lesbian who has no need for birth control and no risk of contracting HIV through sex, so I think that straight people should pay a Sex Tax to cover the cost of the free condoms and birth control pills that the Health Department hands out. My cousin grows his own veggies and his own livestock on his farm in Montana--everyone who DOESN'T should pay a fat Consumer Food Tax to cover the cost of the USDA inspectors and graders who keep an eye on food processing plant safety. Why should my cousin pay for something he doesn't use? My domestic partner isn't unemployed--why should she have to help pay for the employees at the unemployment office? My Jewish great-uncle doesn't celebrate Christmas--why is the government allowed to spend HIS tax dollars buying cutesy Christmas decorations for the town? I don't own a home--why should I help pay for the people who lost their homes and needed federal help? I don't live in a hurricane-prone area--why should I help pay for FEMA relief for people who do?

Really, there are ten thousand examples of things that ALL of us pay for even if we don't directly benefit from them all the time. But we DO indirectly benefit from those things. Every single thing I listed has an indirect benefit to everyone in society, and to the health of society as a whole. Hell, simply maintaining proper civil order is a social benefit! What would your house, car, and belongings be worth in an anarchic society in which uneducated people who can't get jobs just kill and steal to get what they need?

Shallow thinking is a disease in this nation. We have GOT to stop focusing on the MEMEMEMEME aspects and start realizing that we need each other a lot more than we think we do, and that includes Those People Over There Who I Disapprove Of.

[BeFree]

59. Heh

Righteous rant!!

All over the place, but what the hell, that's what rants are for, right? Feel better now?

Maybe after you calm down we can talk?

[wickerwoman]

79. Here's your fundamental logical fallacy:

"Education ranks as the highest total of all government spending. Therefore we know a lot of it is wasted."

The one doesn't follow at all from the other.

Housing is the largest part of my budget. Does it follow that I am therefore wasting a lot of money on housing?

Of course not. Without quantifying the relative quality of my housing, my housing needs and the value that I place of certain aspects of housing such as location, the local going rate for housing, the cost of housing as a % of my total income and numerous other factors you can't say that I'm wasting money on housing simply because it's my biggest expense. Housing could be the largest part of my budget and still be much less than I would like to spend to optimize my benefits.

And even people without children benefit from the public school system if, in no other way, than through the decrease in crime that comes with having educated neighbors and teenagers off the streets for most of the day. Do you have a business? Presumably, you would like to hire employees who can write a coherent letter and do basic math. You definitely want customers who make enough money to afford your goods or services. Do you shop? Bank? Enjoy TV or movies? Go to the hospital or pharmacy? It sure is nice to have a nurse who speaks English, can read labels and can measure out dosages correctly, eh?

And thank God we educated Jonas Salk in the public school system. His parents were dirt poor Russian-Jewish immigrants who almost certainly could not have afforded a "heavy child tax". And you benefit today by being able to walk unassisted and not having to worry about your kids getting polio.

Everybody wins when the general public is as well-educated as we can possibly afford.

[TCJ70]

11. I'm only in favor of elective public education...n/t

[SidDithers]

12. Yes. Enthusiastically kicked and rec'd...nt

Sid

[Dinger]

18. Thank You Sid, Luv Ya!

:thumbsup: :hi:

[PDJane]

16. Yes. Absolutely yes.

My son was educated in the public school system. He was in what they term 'gifted' classes for at least 1/2 of it, was given a fine education, allowed to pursue his own interests, joined the choir and the orchestra and the debating team, won prizes through MECCA/DECCA, learned to skate and ride and swim, play basketball and baseball and hockey, joined the computer club and the library club and so many other things, and got a fine and varied education.

A good public school system is a sign of a civilized society.

[inna]

17. heck, yes! and Nikki rocks btw! :) nt

[NanceGreggs]

19. Damn real!

:kick: & REC'D!!!

[Dinger]

23. Wow, Thanks Nance!

I am humbled.:blush: :)

[NanceGreggs]

42. Thanks for fighting the good fight ...

... where public education is concerned.

I often wonder if any of my former high school teachers are DUers - because if they are, I'd like to publicly thank them, not only for their commitment to education and encouragement of talent or skills, but their (almost mystical!) ability to recognize a troubled teen and set her feet on the right path.

Thanks to the dedication of these people, I was not only educated - I was given good advice, and comfort from "troubles at home" when I most needed it.

As far as I'm concerned, teachers in the public system can't be remunerated enough for what they contribute to students as individuals, or our nation as a whole.

All American children should have the benefit of their many talents ...

[proud2BlibKansan]

45. Whoever taught you to write deserves an award

[NanceGreggs]

66. What an incredibly beautiful thing to say ...

... and I thank you on behalf of Mr. Barry Cohen ('62-3) and Ms. E. Berkson ('64-5), both of Brentwood School District, Long Island, New York.

If anyone out there in DU-land know these people, please pass this message along from me:

Thanks. For everything.

[Iggo]

20. Yes....Yes I am.

[pscot]

24. Privatized inevitably means Corporate

Turning American kids over to the corporations for indoctrination is beyond stupid. It's downright evil.

[existentialist]

26. and so were the founders

For instance look at the Northwest Ordinance, one of the earliest pieces of comprehensive federal legislation. Almost no one opposed it. It specifically set aside two sections of land per township to be used to finance schools. Subsequent legislation regarding settlement of other territories followed suit.

Also I remember reading Thomas Jefferson on the question of whether attendance in a public education should be mandatory for children. Jefferson opposed making it mandatory on the grounds that it would be so rare that parents would not want to take advantage of it voluntarily that it was not worth the damage done to liberty to make attendance in a public education system mandatory.

[Starry Messenger]

27. Yes.

Count me in. :thumbsup:

[donco6]

28. I'm biased, but yes. n/t

[blondeatlast]

31. Oh, hell yes. Abso-effin'-lutely and then some. nt

[Dinger]

34. *Hugs* To You Too blondeatlast

:hug: :pals:

[Thickasabrick]

35. Why would any true democrat not be? nt

[Dinger]

39. Good Question

There is a vocal minority (?) here that are not supporters of public schools or teachers, or their unions.

[Thickasabrick]

41. Well...I see 10 already. Even if you have issues with it - the goal

is to make it stronger and better - not abandon it for charter schools, vouchers, etc.

[Sen. Walter Sobchak]

36. I really wish I could be,

But as long as public schools are forced to be a waiting room for prison I have a hard time faulting those parents who wish to remove their children from that situation.

[Taitertots]

68. "public schools are forced to be a waiting room for prison"

What republican idiot told you that?

The public school I went to was far superior in every way to any private school within a reasonable distance.

[Sen. Walter Sobchak]

70. Several teachers who quit LAUSD in sheer frustration,

and not a republican among them,

[Taitertots]

72. So three people's opinion is all you need to denounce all public schooling

So you think private schools are better?

I'm sure it has nothing to do with RED governors, epidemic poverty, ,privatization ,and teachers unwilling to work.

[Sen. Walter Sobchak]

73. There are excellent public schools, there are horrible public schools

I personally went to a private school for grades 8 and 9 that wasn't that hot.

But I would never expect a parent to send their child to a terrible public school just out of the principle no matter what the mitigating circumstances.

[Taitertots]

75. Public education is still the only viable model for education

Bad public schools are still better than no public schooling.

All sending children to private schools does is make it harder for regular schools. Private schools won't accept/can remove students with bad grades, emotional problems, learning disabilities, and impoverished families. Sending children to private schools takes money away from public schools, due to the economics of scale this decreases the quality of schooling. Private schooling buys up good teachers, only further eroding the public schools.


"But I would never expect a parent to send their child to a terrible public school just out of the principle no matter what the mitigating circumstances."
The mitigating circumstances are that they can't afford it or their children wouldn't be accepted. For most people sending their children to private school isn't an option. It is good to know your parents were wealthy enough to have the option, not many people do.

[FBaggins]

82. But there are lots of variations on what might be called "public education"

The current model is not the only choice.

I'd also say that while it may be our best option... we can't pretend it's the only "viable model" since people received exceptional educations prior to anything that looked remotely like our current system.

[Taitertots]

84. It depends how you interpret viable model

Is a system were only the rich get any education a viable model?
Is a system were only a fraction of people have access to an education a viable model?
Obviously there is some variety among possible public education programs.


I don't think anything that creates a permanent uneducated class is a viable system.

[FBaggins]

90. I certainly agree with your last statement.

This ceases to be America unless the daughter of the taxi driver can grow up to be a CEO based on her own merit.

Is a system were only the rich get any education a viable model?
Is a system were only a fraction of people have access to an education a viable model?


Of course not. But those are hardly the only alternatives to the current PS model.

[Taitertots]

91. See post #69

There are many alternatives within the scope of public education. Within the public education system there can be improvements.

However a public education system is the only model which creates a socially optimal result. Corporatist education can't work.

[Selatius]

93. Corporate-controlled education systems simply lead to obedient, docile workers.

They want to turn public education into glorified job training. They want to turn active citizens into passive consumers, and they want to remove the critical thinking that schools have taught to people so that people can be easier to control and less likely to reject the social programming that they create and then try to implant into the minds of people. They want people dumb enough to accept increasingly shittier pay and benefits and pensions and 401ks that disappear when they go to get them but just smart enough to operate the machinery and equipment that the rich own.

In the past, they created "Head Start." Today, they create "No Child Left Behind." Hmmmm, somebody is fucking losing ground here, and it ain't the kids from rich families.

[noamnety]

94. That was the philosophy behind public education as well

"We want one class of persons to have a liberal education, and we want another class of persons, a very much larger class of necessity in every society, to forgo the privilege of a liberal education and fit themselves to perform specific difficult manual tasks."

— Woodrow Wilson

[FBaggins]

95. Actually... that's where out current public education system came from

The intent was create job training for the assembly lines.

[FBaggins]

96. Those aren't the only options.

Education need not be "corporatist" in order to be non-public.

Indeed... in many ways it's hard to argue that our current system is devoid of corporatist influences.

[Sen. Walter Sobchak]

120. and the current system isn't creating a "permanent uneducated class" in many circumstances?

You can graduate high school in this country and neither be able to communicate coherently or make change for a dollar.

[Hannah Bell]

173. it is. but that's not because it's public, & it's not because of teachers.

[Sen. Walter Sobchak]

178. so a parent should be faulted for removing their child from such a school?

Few parents are going to wish to sacrifice their children to your ideological purity,

[Taitertots]

218. Well lets look at that idea

Does taking the child out cause the school to decay further? Yes. It will decrease school funding, private schools buy good teachers, and

Are you really helping them? Selective admissions schools are magnets for intelligent students. How can they say they do better when they push their lowest students to public school and take their smartest students? It is a self selecting group bias.

As people leave public schools it creates a strong motivation for them to sabotage public schools through denial of funding or not considering public education while voting.

No parent should sacrifice their children. They should take responsibility for making sure that their children learn outside of school. I can't stand this idea of pushing children to teachers and refusing to take an active role. Parents need to read to their children, take them to the library, and make education a life style. Education isn't just school and homework. If they are good parents their involvement will more than bridge the gap. They could also become activist for better public schools.

[Sen. Walter Sobchak]

219. So the child should attend the shitty school and be home schooled concurrently?

Just so the said shitty school which has already failed them doesn't lose an individual students worth of funding?

If you are a parent and your child is being failed by their designated public school - FUCK THE SCHOOL.

[Sen. Walter Sobchak]

118. Nobody has ever suggested ending public education,

But there is nothing wrong with a parent electing not to send their child to a public school that happens to be horrible.

The teachers I know who quit teaching in public schools left because they were sick of being confronted daily by students who were hardened criminals or had a belligerent refusal to learn and parents who were completely indifferent to those issues. Their teachers not police, parole officers or prison guards.

[Hannah Bell]

175. could it be because ed in ca has been under attack since reagan & spending is

currently on a par with mississippi?

[Sen. Walter Sobchak]

177. So they had violent hooligans in their classroom because of proposition 13?

yes, that MUST be it.

[FBaggins]

183. Correct... and important to note that...

...we're not talking about "since reagan" as in the 1980s, but since he was Gov of CA in the 60s.

Also... if we're going to point out that public schools accept all comers while many private schools are selective (and even will kick out a kid LONG before a public school would) we much also note that CA has significantly more demographic challenges than most other states. Regardless of your position on immigration (documented or otherwise), CA schools have incredible challenges to deal with.

One disagreement... CA spends plenty more than MS (just about the median in fact while MS is 6th from the bottom in that 2007 data). Their bigger challenge is that those dollars simply don't buy as much. In some parts of the state you could pay a teacher 50% more than what she would earn in MS and still have her come out on the short end of the stick cost-of-living-wise.

[Hannah Bell]

184. nope, it's on par with mississippi, per-pupil-wise. it spends more money because it's *bigger,*

that's all.

mississippi spends *more,* in fact.

http://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&q=cache:mmHAZgOsdIkJ:www.cta.org/NR/rdonlyres/35098CAB-729F-4436-B2D5-AC8A1AD8CFEE/0/CAPerPupilFunding47thRankingChartQC20091909.pdf+per+pupil+spending+california+mississippi&hl=en&gl=us&pid=bl&srcid=ADGEESgXMJ2mhdElljRq7usjFYw6f0Xg9jSCsmnigYCm9cdU93N5Y9EWqq6NnNr8DNntsWMfM6AdISH3VzbyFnkY5VkNmil49aOu42ZOhoRIhjCJELHB-jdLXGueFjhxaQaNxZ89rtCA&sig=AHIEtbTzDGJVcNC_hrVtMXsYEk4frjzvTQ


California comparisonCalifornia has been consistently below the national average in per-pupil spending .... Although the state's spending on education is above the national average (by 7% .... Mississippi, 15.4, 32, $7215, 45. Missouri, 13.6, 15, $7840, 38 ...
www.ed-data.k12.ca.us/.../article.asp?...California%20comparison - Cached - Similar


California restructured its funding system so that in all but 5 percent of California, districts are within $300 of each other. However, legislators responded by placing a cap on spending. California, the eighth richest state, spends 3.8 percent of per capita income on education, making it the 46th in that category of spending ranking. Many affluent districts have formed tax-exempt foundations to make up for lost income.

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/backgrounders/school_funding.html

[FBaggins]

185. Did you by any chance read your own link?

Those aren't actual dollars.. they're dollars "adjusted for regional cost differences'

So just as I said... California spends plenty more than MS (and more per pupil)... it's just less effective because those same dollars don't go as far.

[Hannah Bell]

186. did you read it? the link, speaking of teachers' salaries ONLY, gives both

a nominal & adjusted figure.

This is nothing to do with per pupil figures, for which i've given two links. Per pupil figures *aren't* adjusted.

on edit: my error, i mixed up my links. a moment for nominal figures.


Effort: Per-Pupil Expenditures

Perhaps the most salient measure of a state’s effort is how much it spends per pupil. California remains below the national average in per-pupil expenditures, ranking 29th in 2005–06, according to the National Education Association (NEA) Rankings & Estimates 2006–07. At $8,486, California was at 93% of the national average and ranked in the middle of the five most populous states.


Expenditures per K–12 Pupil in Fall Enrollment for California
Over the Last 10 Years

California Rank U.S Average

2005–06 $8,486 29 $9,100
2004–05 $7,935 30 $8,717
2003–04 $7,745 27 $8,340
2002–03 $7,580 26 $8,065
2001–02 $7,055 31 $7,532
2000–01 $7,018 24 $7,296
1999–00 $6,333 27 $6,824
1998–99 $5,666 36 $6,455
1997–98 $5,580 31 $6,174
1996–97 $5,191 36 $5,949



Students Enrolled per Teacher and Per Student Expenditures
for the 50 States and D.C.

Students Enrolled Per Teacher in Public K–12 Schools,
Fall 2005 Rank Per Student Expenditures,
Fall Enrollment, 2005–06 Rank

http://www.ed-data.k12.ca.us/Articles/article.asp?title=California%20comparison

California 21.0 49 $8,486 29

Mississippi 15.4 32 $7,215 45



Democrats and Republicans are citing different figures in a complex but high-stakes dispute: Money for schools is the main issue in what could be a lengthy partisan battle over the state budget this year...

The Education Week ranking of 46th is often cited by advocates of increased school funding such as the two-decade-old Education Coalition, led by the politically powerful California Teachers Association.

Ironically, Republicans are making their case by relying on figures from an organization they often disagree with – the National Education Association, the nation's largest teachers union.

Why are the rankings so different?

Education Week adjusts per-pupil spending to reflect regional variations in cost of living, particularly teacher salaries, and the National Education Association does not.

Both start with similar spending in California during fiscal 2004-05. Education Week uses federal data, $7,905 per pupil; the NEA uses its own data, $7,942 per pupil.

Then Education Week applies a 1990 federal “geographic cost of education index” that drops California from 30th to 46th at $7,081 per pupil, well below the national average of $8,973 per pupil.

Spending more than $12,000 per pupil in Education Week's ranking are New York, New Jersey, Vermont and the District of Columbia. Below California are Idaho, Arizona and, at the bottom, Utah at $5,463 per pupil.

Some experts think a regional cost adjustment is appropriate but difficult to do accurately.

In February, California's Legislative Analyst's Office cited unadjusted federal data for fiscal 2003-04 (then the most recent available), ranking California “right in the middle of the pack” at 25th among states, with $7,673 per pupil...

Advocates of increased spending on schools have long used per-pupil comparisons with other states as a benchmark. California was among the leaders during the 1960s, but it has been below the national average by any measure for decades.

http://legacy.signonsandiego.com/uniontrib/20080413/news_1n13pupil.html

[FBaggins]

188. Lol... which link?

http://www2.census.gov/govs/school/07f33pub.pdf

Page 13 gives the unadjusted figure (for 2007).

The link speaking of teachers' salaries doesn't bear on total spending.

Per pupil figures *aren't* adjusted.

Your link - http://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&q=cache:mmHAZgOsdIkJ:www.cta.org/NR/rdonlyres/35098CAB-729F-4436-B2D5-AC8A1AD8CFEE/0/CAPerPupilFunding47thRankingChartQC20091909.pdf+per+pupil+spending+california+mississippi&hl=en&gl=us&pid=bl&srcid=ADGEESgXMJ2mhdElljRq7usjFYw6f0Xg9jSCsmnigYCm9cdU93N5Y9EWqq6NnNr8DNntsWMfM6AdISH3VzbyFnkY5VkNmil49aOu42ZOhoRIhjCJELHB-jdLXGueFjhxaQaNxZ89rtCA&sig=AHIEtbTzDGJVcNC_hrVtMXsYEk4frjzvTQ

makes clear "PPE Adjusted for regional cost differences 2006). I'm not sure how you're denying it?

Your other two links do not bear on whether CA spends more perstudent than MS. One just says (taking your summary as fact since the link doesn't appear to work) that they're below the national average (MS is WAY below - see the link I provided)... the other makes the very error you accused me of... measuring by something other than PPE. It's education spending as a percentage of per-capita income. If income in CA were twice the national average they could spend half the percentage of per-capita income and they would come out even on an unadjusted dollar basis.

On edit - stop typing so fast. :)

Don't bother looking for the unadjusted data... I gave it to you above. CA is $9,152 (in 2007) MS is $7,473.

Need to call it a night. Have a project to work on. Thanks for an entertaining debate.

[Hannah Bell]

193. you didn't respond to the edit. unadjusted cal = 29, ms = 45.

california, pre-reagan, had the best ed system in the fucking world, for *everyone* & *anyone*. mississippi, otoh, has always sucked for the majority of its students.

[FBaggins]

194. Did you expect a response other than "Thanks for proving me right"?

Unadjusted CA is just where I said it was and well above MS.

I responded to the first edit by softening my correction when it appeared you realized your error. Now I can't tell whether you realize that you just documented what I said the first time... Or think that it supports your position.

Yes... CA's sytem took a nose dive around that time... Though I would disagree that the challenges thy overcame then were as substantial as today.

[Hannah Bell]

203. right? california = 29 = bottom 50%. They don't have high per pupil spending.

They have more students than any other state.

"Well above" = ~$1000 above.

California = #6 in terms of per capita income, # 29 in terms of per capita ed spending.

MS = # 50 in per capita income, # 45 in p/c ed spending.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/States_of_the_United_States_of_America_by_income

PS: you said you had to go a long time ago, why are you still here?

[FBaggins]

209. And your point is?

29 would be awfully close to the mid-point wouldn't it? And you'll note that they're quite a bit above MS... which was the point you were arguing. You're looking at one year. You'll note that they fall into other slots (see your own data) in other years. But they are always well above MS... when you claimed otherwise.

PS: you said you had to go a long time ago, why are you still here?


It appears I have some sick kids. I've been up and down allnight. Sue me for entertaining myself in between. :)

[noamnety]

214. What's going on with the other 5%?

"California restructured its funding system so that in all but 5 percent of California, districts are within $300 of each other. However, legislators responded by placing a cap on spending. California, the eighth richest state, spends 3.8 percent of per capita income on education, making it the 46th in that category of spending ranking. Many affluent districts have formed tax-exempt foundations to make up for lost income."

This sounds like what I was critiquing earlier, that in public education, everyone gets an equal education - except some are more "equal" than others, and the poor kids are excluded from the better schools.

[FBaggins]

217. Can't speak to the specifics... but you're pretty close

Yes... some are "more equal" than others.

Just as California spends more than certain other states but gets less because those same dollars don't buy as much in California... it would be a mistake to spend the same number of dollars per student throughout the state.

California, as you no doubt know, would be a pretty large and diverse country if it weren't a state. There are massive differences in demographics and cost of living. You may think that you're doing a poor inner-city school in southern CA a favor by ensuring that they get the same per-pupil funding as a school in the northern part of the state. But the reality is that property costs and other cost-of-living-impacted factors mean that those dollars just don't go as far.

I'll give them the benefit of the doubt and assume that these 5% are districts where "fair" wouldn't be "fair". My assumption would also be that it would be needed in more than 5% of districts... but I'm not in a position to know.

[janx]

37. YEP!

:hi:

It could use some work though. Class sizes are too big, teachers don't make enough money, and education administration is far too bloated.

[gleaner]

38. I chose yes ....

I went to public schools and it opened up a whole world of education and knowledge for me. I think this is one way the community shows how much it cares for its children. Teach them. Show them books and how to learn from them and how to be scholars and good citizens. Public schools encourage diversity and tolerance for other people and expose children to a whole range of activities and learning that they otherwise might not encounter. They tend to open up the world instead of narrowing it down to one facet of life like some private schools can do. I think we are underselling our children by not spending the money it would take to give them good facilities, learning materials and helping our our teachers across the board. This is much more important than lining the pockets of bank owners or killing people in foreign countries while chasing a chimera which doesn't exist.

[voc]

40. Yes.

[Th1onein]

43. Yep.

knr

[la la]

51. yes n/t

[keep_it_real]

54. If the rich had to send their children to public Ed it would be better

[noamnety]

80. not entirely.

Schools in the richer areas would be better.

Richer areas raise taxes to fund their own schools, and have a long history of happily neglecting schools in poorer neighborhoods.

[kenny blankenship]

55. I like to think so but if this is just some kind of setup

where you tell me to go enlist as a substitute teacher in a public school, since I say I love it so much, and give me helpful link to the county schoolboard, well you can stuff it.

[Turbineguy]

56. Sure, why not?

But it should improve once they get rid of "No Child Left Behind".

[bamacrat]

57. Yes, it could better and needs way more money.

Private schools are good and all but create some douchy people. SOME. Homeschooling is bad though, real bad, mostly christian fundamentalists homeschool their kids. Socially stunted and weird.

[geek_sabre]

62. stereotype much?

Private schools certainly don't have a monopoly on creating "douchy" people. And there are several progressive, non-fundamentalist DUers who homeschool their kids for any number of reasons.

[bamacrat]

71. Sure douches come from everywhere thats why I said some.

Homeschooled kids are weird, sorry, and the parents always think they are doing such a wonderful amazing thing like they are so above public schools. I have a good bit of experience with public school kids and especially parents.

[Taitertots]

85. The smugness of the parents is overwhelming

They are so certain they are better at teaching than people who actually have teaching degrees.

[bamacrat]

127. Exactly, its not the kids fault. The parents just think they are saving thier kids from hell.

My old boss homeschooled his kids and he is a hardcore christian conservative. He acts like public schools do nothing but stunt kids development. His kids are intelligent but are taught with the bible and his oldest child actually wants to go to public school so she can have kids. Ive met other people that say they threaten their kids with public school when they misbehave. Just crazy.

[FBaggins]

189. I "get" why they threaten the kids with public school...

...what I don't get it why they would take the chance (assuming they think HSing is better for their kids) or what sense it makes.

We all know what incredible amounts of time are wasted in a school day. Not because anyone is doing anything wrong, but because of the logistics of managing large numbers of students. Many HS students (certainly not all) can get a good night's sleep and still complete a full day's coursework by the mid-day while we all remember getting up before the sun and getting home mid-afternoon while still having and hour or two of homework to do.

That's a "threat" that you assume would carry some weight. The kid could see it as giving up lots of free time.

The problem is that kids that NEED such "threats" are often pretty stubborn in the first place. Which means that they're the ones who are MORE likely to push mom and dad just out of rebelliousness. So the kid ends up in public school when the parents didn't want him there... OR the parents lose credibility on future "threats". SOME of those kids see the differences in public education and want to come back home... some end up thriving there and want to stay (or meet lots of new friends... or whatever). Good for that kid, but presumably mom and dad don't agree.

So it's a pretty dumb threat to make.

[proteus_lives]

63. No.

From personal experience. Public school failed me. I went to a boarding school and got an education when I was ignored and marginalized in my old public school.

There are good schools and teachers but I've heard and seen too many horror stories to be a "Clear, Unambiguous And Unapologetic Supporter Of Public Education".

[Raine]

78. Same thing happened to me

when I entered public school I had some emotional problems due to the death of family member I had been extremely close to. I was introverted and tramatized, I needed some extra attention from someone with some sensitivity. The teacher I had labeled me as a dummy and called me "stupid" to my face, stigmatizing me to all my classmates. Luckily when my parents got wind of what was going on they pulled me out of public school and put me into private school. Even in private school it took awhile for me to come out of my shell. I had some kind caring teachers who saw that I was worth a little bit of extra attention and after that I thrived.

[D23MIURG23]

65. Fuck yes. Even if it does need a lot of TLC at this point.

[teacher gal]

67. K&R n/t

[Taitertots]

69. Supporter of public schools, Yes

Do I think we should make dramatic changes within the public school system? Yes
Public education is essential, but its methods should never be without scrutiny.


Tax anyone with children in private school.
Create a minimum accepted per student spending level.(more than now)
Pay market wages for good teaching service.(way more than now)
Make parents responsible for their children's grades.

[TexasObserver]

74. Yes! Yes! Yes!

No breaks for private schools. More support for public schools, not tied to the economics of the immediate community.

[LeftyMom]

76. I don't think the current model works, no matter who pays for it.

The idea that 20 kids or more are all ready, willing and able to learn the same thing in the same way at the same time only makes sense if you ignore any experience you may have with actual children.

[EFerrari]

77. You bet.

[noamnety]

81. Why I voted no.

I unambiguously support public schools as a concept.

I do not unambiguously support public schools as they are structured in this country because there is an overwhelming amount of institutional racism embedded into the funding structure itself, and as a result they are failing wide segments of our population.

Other aspects of public education I do not unambiguously support - the emphasis on standardized testing, prohibiting students from attending better schools because they can't afford to live in that neighborhood, how gifted education is handled, how special ed is often handled, how bilingual education is handled in some districts.

All of that can be fixed within the boundaries of true public education, but I've found that both the people in charge of reform and the general public (particularly those in the richer neighborhoods or well off suburbs) are not willing to do what's fair and just, they are out to preserve the privileged education their kids get, at the expense of others in the public system if need be.

[proud2BlibKansan]

106. Yet your salary comes from tax dollars spent on public education

That is, if you really do teach as you claim you do.

[OneTenthofOnePercent]

83. No. I think Charter and Private schools provide a little more accountability.

Often times, people expect more performance out of a charter or private school. Higher expectations should mean more accountability at some level in the school administration. I do plan on sending my kids to private/catholic school. Not that anything's too bad about the public schools, I just really enjoyed my school experience and liked the limited size of my high school (smaller... much more family-type feel).

[Taitertots]

92. You get more because they scrap off the good students

and refuse to accept the bad ones. It has nothing to do with accountability and everything to do with selective admission.

[OneTenthofOnePercent]

97. There was an entrance exam to the schools I attended.

I'm not sure just how selective they were (after all, everyone's money is green) but we did only graduate about 75% of the original freshmen class. The other 25% were expelled or transferred. This was a private high school though - not a charter school.

As for charter school selectivity, I'm not sure that's a bad thing. Students on the upper end of the scholastic spectrum, especially students whose parents can't afford to send them to private school, are able to attend classes in a more challenging and learning oriented environment with other gifted students. It's like govn't subsidized private school so all who are able to attend can do so - the only qualifier being grades, of course. The only catch is charters should not receive more funding per student versus other city schools. Awarding money and salaries based on the performance of a screened student-body is wrong and just plain stupid. Said otherwise: They shouldn't let the foxes guard the henhouse.

Schools already do this sort of thing, except on a micro-managed level. Remember general, honors, and AP classes in certain subjects? If you can separate students by skill level, you can teach them more efficiently. It does a math whiz no good to learn the topic in 5 minutes and spend the other 45 minutes doodling in their notebook. It also does a struggling student no good to be passed up because the teacher cannot afford to slow an entire class down for the extra needs of a few students. A charter (or private) school is the same concept, except it's applies at an environment-level. It allows changes to be made to improve performance at all levels with fewer compromises. Bluntly put, smart students get to learn more and slow student get the attention & resources they require to excel... both of these are good.

(All this assumes a fair and corruption-free use of the charter schools)

[FBaggins]

103. That's certainly the case with many private schools - but not all

Most of them will take virtually any student (as long as the check clears of course)

Yes... they can kick out the true duds who can't bring themselves to respect the classroom... but I'm not sure that the solution for that isn't to make it easier for the public schools to do the same thing.

[proud2BlibKansan]

116. That's not true in every state

You can't make a general statement like that about private and charter schools.

[Hannah Bell]

144. bs. less, by statute. that's their selling point.

[old mark]

86. YES, BUT....It's certainly better than public ignorance, but it has been

politicized and twisted ever since I can remember, and in many places Fundies run the school board, so we are getting religious-fantasy-ignorance instead of real education, but we still manage to provide some good quality schools out of the mess.

Supporter, certainly - but we could do much better.

FWIW, I have 4 teachers in my family, and several others working for schools in different fields.

mark

[blindpig]

87. k&r

[LWolf]

88. Of course.

:hi:

[varelse]

89. Yes, I am (nt)

[CTyankee]

100. Public education is a cornerstone of our democracy.

While we can differ in remedies to problems with school systems, there is no question at all in my mind that public education is a blessing of liberty...

[Romulox]

102. I've had too many lousy public school teachers to "unambiguously" support Public Education

That said, I support the concept of Public Education; however, I do not believe the key to some of my old teachers becoming competent is a giving a higher pay rate to the same persons...

[Smarmie Doofus]

114. I could tell you stories about teachers in private schools.....

... that will curl your hair.

[Smarmie Doofus]

113. Have to vote NO , Dinger.

I think the question's too broad.

I do NOT support the system we have here ( NYC). I call it NIDBUS for short.( Nightmarishly Dysfunctional Bureaucratic Swamp). No reflection on the teachers and certainly on the union... which can be... and USUALLY is... a force for real reform against the abuses and corruption that plague the system.


OTOH, I recognize that PS systems elesewhere work well.

[alp227]

121. Yes on the concept, no on the way it's run

Here's some solutions to fix up public education: FUND THE DISTRICTS PROPERLY FOR WHATEVER benefits everything the staff/teachers/students need, more accommodations with students with extraordinary learning styles in addition to the low-functioning special ed students, and more college prep before the ritzy college prep academies defund the public schools!

[Lorien]

125. Absolutely! And I attended private schools

My parents were able to scrape together enough money to send my sister and I to a very liberal private school. I'd like every child in America to have the best education possible WITHOUT requiring that their parents bring in six figures a year. These kids will be in control when we're older; a well informed, well educated population won't be a flock of sheep or mindless knee jerk flat earthers. Right now they teach kids to memorize facts for tests and not think objectively. The government doesn't want a well educated population for the obvious reasons. We need to fight against the dumbing down of America by demanding better for our youth (and I say this as a child-free person).

[rucky]

128. In theory.

But call me when they repeal NCLB.

[mamaleah]

136. I completely support the teachers, but often the administrators aren't so hot.

They don't back up their teachers often enough and leave the teachers trapped between them an the parents.

[Deep13]

162. Not much ambiguity in paying ones local taxes. nt

[waiting for hope]

174. Yes - and our democracy

depends on it. K&R.

[phasma ex machina]

187. +1 A most excellent idea ever since the

Old Deluder Satan Law

[quaker bill]

211. Quakers more or less invented it

"In the South Jersey region, Quakers sponsored the earliest schools. Thomas Budd, a Quaker leader and intellectual, recorded the Quaker response to education in 1685 in the book Good Order Established in Pennsylvania and New Jersey in America: Being a True Account of the Country. In it Budd suggests that New Jersey legally require parents to enroll their children in school for at least seven years; that municipalities provide schools and teachers; and that boys and girls be instructed in reading, writing, arithmetic, English, Latin, and bookkeeping, in addition to boys learning a trade and girls learning spinning, weaving, knitting, sewing, and needlework. From 1746-87, Quakers made further efforts to ensure their children's education, recorded in the Rules of Discipline of the Yearly Meeting of Friends for Pennsylvania, Maryland, Delaware, and the Eastern Parts of Maryland. <2> One means was to entice knowledgeable teachers by offering them land for an ample homestead—as well as a salary. They also proposed that a collection taken at monthly meetings augment the teacher's salary or lessen the burden of tuition on poor families. Free, tax-supported public education was not instituted until the 1870s. A committee was also appointed to maintain the schools, gather funds, and review tutoring and teaching applicants. <3> The Old Stone School House, erected by Quakers in 1810 outside Greenwich in Cumberland County, is one of the oldest extant schools in the region (Fig. 99)."

http://www.cr.nps.gov/history/online_books/nj2/chap7.htm

...and...

The same Enlightenment views which animated the founding fathers and early antislavery reformers in turn inspired the men and women who championed the right to free, public education for blacks and whites. Of course many of the abolitionists, for example the Quakers, opposed slavery on the grounds that it was an abomination before God. But the emphasis on education entailed a secular notion: that a truly democratic society could not exist alongside the subjugation and disenfranchisement of 4 million human beings.

The exhibit documents the impact of slavery on blacks living in the North. Although slavery had been abolished there, blacks were still denied the right to education. One panel recounts the trials of Prudence Crandell, a Quaker, who opened the Canterbury Female Boarding School in 1831. When she decided to admit black girls, white parents pulled their daughters out. Crandell then opened a school for black girls. The Connecticut legislature passed the "Black Law" which prohibited blacks from attending school. When she defied the law and opened the school anyway, Crandell was denied food, supplies and medicine. The school's well was contaminated with manure. Crandell was arrested and the school was burned down.

http://www.wsws.org/public_html/iwb12-29/exhbt.htm

and we still support it