Failure is not an option: A sneak peek at school reform?

[Samson]

As far as any widespread "cutting back on sports," I frankly remain unconvinced. I agree that extrapolating the condition of schools from one locale to the nation, or even the state, or even within the same school district can be problematic, but given the graph of school spending offered in the thread, it would appear that they certainly have not been "given less."

The lastest year in the chart was, IIRC 2004-2005 and was provided to show a comparison of State, Local, Federal, Other as overall percentages of education funding.

The real economic crunch as been the last 2-3 years which are beyond the scope of the chart.

In the district I worked for we've had serious cutbacks including pay freezes, pay reductions, RIF's, and program cuts. For example last year alone we had to cut $21,000,000 (about 20%) of the budget and this year coming up we are forcasting another 8-9 million in reductions.


>>>>

No doubt.

I was addressing the comment that covered the past 35 years of educators "being asked to do more with less." Clearly this is untrue.

But the fact is if the school cut back 20% of the budget last year, and increased their budgets only 50% between 1990 and 2008, they still have a gross gain of 30% in the budget. A business that increased their gross revenues this much over the same period would be happy.

 

[WorldWatcher]

This is true. But a grade (although subjective) is supposed to measure learning. Generally, if you ask an F student what he learned in class, you will get a very puzzled expression on his face.

While I understand that some grades are subjective (i.e. papers, short essay, etc...) is not the ultimate goal of grades to measure performance and not learning. For example take the AP Calculus AB test, to measure learning there would have to be two tests: one at the beginning of a semester and one at the end. Then an analysis of the difference between the two to measure learning. In reality there is a single test at the end of the year that measures performance.

Performance is the true measure, especially in Middle School, High School, and College. Grades are much more quantified, with even "subjective" individual grades converted to a numeric scale and the overall course grade determined by either a weighted average or the overall percentage of points earned as a function of maximum points available. Now I recognize that some teachers assign point spreads differently on tests, quizzes, homework, attendance, and participation - but in the end it's performance that is (and in my mind should be) the measurement of success.



>>>>

 

[WorldWatcher]

As far as any widespread "cutting back on sports," I frankly remain unconvinced. I agree that extrapolating the condition of schools from one locale to the nation, or even the state, or even within the same school district can be problematic, but given the graph of school spending offered in the thread, it would appear that they certainly have not been "given less."

The lastest year in the chart was, IIRC 2004-2005 and was provided to show a comparison of State, Local, Federal, Other as overall percentages of education funding.

The real economic crunch as been the last 2-3 years which are beyond the scope of the chart.

In the district I worked for we've had serious cutbacks including pay freezes, pay reductions, RIF's, and program cuts. For example last year alone we had to cut $21,000,000 (about 20%) of the budget and this year coming up we are forcasting another 8-9 million in reductions.


>>>>

No doubt.

I was addressing the comment that covered the past 35 years of educators "being asked to do more with less." Clearly this is untrue.

But the fact is if the school cut back 20% of the budget last year, and increased their budgets only 50% between 1990 and 2008, they still have a gross gain of 30% in the budget. A business that increased their gross revenues this much over the same period would be happy.

Maybe, maybe not.

There are many factors that impact the cost of education (salaries being only one of them).

As one example a major part of school budgets is transportation. In 1990 the average price of gas was about $1.34, today it's hovering about $3.00 a gallon. A 50% increase in the cost of gas over that period would be (1.34 * 1.5) = $2.02. With gas at $3.00 a gallon that is actually a loss of purchasing power of about 67%.

Put another way, a business that saw a 50% increase in gross revenues over the period who saw only a 25% increase would probably be pretty happy as overall profitability increased by 25%. On the other hand a company that saw gross revenues increase by 50% but costs increase by 67% would be showing a net decrease in profitability of 17%. I doubt they would be "happy".

Now, I understand we are discussing government entities which are not profit driven, I'm just responding to your statement about business and gross revenues.



>>>>

 

[Samson]

The lastest year in the chart was, IIRC 2004-2005 and was provided to show a comparison of State, Local, Federal, Other as overall percentages of education funding.

The real economic crunch as been the last 2-3 years which are beyond the scope of the chart.

In the district I worked for we've had serious cutbacks including pay freezes, pay reductions, RIF's, and program cuts. For example last year alone we had to cut $21,000,000 (about 20%) of the budget and this year coming up we are forcasting another 8-9 million in reductions.


>>>>

No doubt.

I was addressing the comment that covered the past 35 years of educators "being asked to do more with less." Clearly this is untrue.

But the fact is if the school cut back 20% of the budget last year, and increased their budgets only 50% between 1990 and 2008, they still have a gross gain of 30% in the budget. A business that increased their gross revenues this much over the same period would be happy.

Maybe, maybe not.

There are many factors that impact the cost of education (salaries being only one of them).

As one example a major part of school budgets is transportation. In 1990 the average price of gas was about $1.34, today it's hovering about $3.00 a gallon. A 50% increase in the cost of gas over that period would be (1.34 * 1.5) = $2.02. With gas at $3.00 a gallon that is actually a loss of purchasing power of about 67%.

Put another way, a business that saw a 50% increase in gross revenues over the period who saw only a 25% increase would probably be pretty happy as overall profitability increased by 25%. On the other hand a company that saw gross revenues increase by 50% but costs increase by 67% would be showing a net decrease in profitability of 17%. I doubt they would be "happy".

Now, I understand we are discussing government entities which are not profit driven, I'm just responding to your statement about business and gross revenues.



>>>>

Indeed, but the lack of concern about profitability only makes me less sympathetic to a 20% loss in revenue.


Cutting back pay raises, benefits, etc., has been the norm for all Americans for the past couple of years: Why should schools be exempt?

Regardless, the 20% drop will no doubt be a minor, temportary setback. I doubt they'll not budget anything to water and mow the football field this summer, and even if they do, the first game in September could be played.

 

[editec]

Schools that RECEIVE federal funding will "go for it." Those that do not, will not. The interest in attending to procribed NCLB mandates is directly related to the Federal $ involved.

Not sure what highschools you are dealing with, but unless you have some proof that there are no AP courses offered, then you're full of shit. Please post the addy of the US school system that does not offer one AP course.

Finally, WTF does your comment about "Employment is not secure- that's a myth," have to do with anything?

Our local HS couldn't afford to offer AP courses.

So, it's not a myth.

Schools are cutting back on AP courses, music, the arts and sports.

Schools have been cutting back on things for the last 35 years.

AS schools are locally run and financed, generalizing about them is usually a bad idea, but in the aggregate schools have been asked to do more, much more, with less.

Given the mess that most American families are in, it's hardly surprising that their kids aren't doing well in school.

Often if one high school within a district cannot afford (more likely there are not enough students to justify an AP class) then they will transport the district's students to another HS that offers the course.

Where do you get this "often" stuff?

You're "often" assumes that there are TWO high schools and assumes also that they have enough dough to offer AP classes in it.

Those are two rather large assumption you are asking me to accept without evidence to support them.

As far as any widespread "cutting back on sports," I frankly remain unconvinced. I agree that extrapolating the condition of schools from one locale to the nation, or even the state, or even within the same school district can be problematic, but given the graph of school spending offered in the thread (post #17), it would appear that they certainly have not been "given less." Their budget has doubled between 1990-2004, to almost $500 B.

I didn't say they were "given less".

But inflation means that while they amounts might be the same or higher the schools face exactly what the rest of us face...decreased purchasing power.

Look spending won't solve the problem because the REAL PROBLEMS are stemming from what the families of America are facing.

When mother went to work in great numbers (that really started in the late 60s and early 70s) schools started having problems like they never faced before.

Throw in the huge incidence of single parents, add to that the fact, the rapid decline in overall quality of life in most American families and you can pretty much expect that the schools these kids attend are going to have problems way beyond their ability to cope.

 

[Samson]

I didn't say they were "given less". .

No?

in the aggregate schools have been asked to do more, much more, with less.

Unless you are actually able to recall what you've posted, in the same thread, if not the same PAGE of the thread, your credability is a little tarnished about knowing anything else in particular.Perhaps you may redeem yourself by giving the number of kids who do not have access to AP classes.

Perhaps you could demonstrate that while the vast majority of students attend classes in metropolitan areas, there is only one HS available to these students, and it doesn't offer AP courses.

Or, perhaps you'll admit to your proposerouly absurd notion that it is not often that US public high school students do not often have the opportunity to take advanced classes.