Government "Cut-backs" in Education

[DGS49]

Here in Pennsylvania, one of the major issues in the coming gubernatorial campaign will be the current Governor's education "cut-backs."

A couple years ago, when the Feds released all that "stimulus" money, school districts in PA were cautioned to use the money for one-time expenses, because the money was one-time money. Of course, they all hired new teachers and administrators. When the federal money dried up, the mean, nasty Republicans in the state legislature and the Governor did NOT increase state funding to match the "lost" one-time federal money. So the school districts (and the teachers' unions) were whining that there was no money to pay all these new people.

This is the "cut" in Education funding that makes our state Dems' eyes go glossy.

But that's not the point of this thread.

Over the course of my fifty-some year working life I have seen numerous business downturns, recessions, and what-not, and in virtually all of them the employees have been told, essentially, that we had to make do with fewer people and resources. Sometimes it's a 5% cut, sometimes 10%, sometimes more. Sometimes they simply didn't replace people who left, and sometimes people lost their jobs (I[ve lost my job in these circumstances 4 times).

When it happens, the work of those who depart is spread around over everyone who remains. Sometimes there are tasks and reports that we used to think were necessary and they were simply dropped because there was no time to do them. In essentially all cases, within six months everything is back to normal with the reduced staff.

It is simply normal in the Real World of corporate life.

Contrast this with the public school education "industry." Per-pupil spending in constant year dollars has almost tripled since 1960. Class sizes have decreased, administration has exploded in size, and the information revolution has hit most schools like a tornado.

And yet, educational outcomes have - to be kind - not improved.

But there is an 800 pound gorilla in the "room": pension expenses. Today's teachers have been promised long, lucrative, carefree retirements that, for the most part, have not been funded. So the states and the school districts are going to have to pay enhanced contributions to these retirement funds that will have the effect of "eating" a portion of the education budgets over the coming years.

And we, the taxpayers are told that there is no alternative but to dramatically increase our "contributions" to the education budgets, usually in the form of higher - much higher - property taxes. (Parenthetically, we Baby Boomers are deviously trying to have funding for schools shifted from property taxes to income taxes, so that we won't have to foot the bill after we retire. As Curly used to say, "Nyuk, nyuk, nyuk").

Why is it that every commercial enterprise in the country can figure out how to "do more with less" when revenues start to tail off, but Government Workers can, without being slapped across the face, tell us that if basic education funding is not increased by X percent, then we CAN EXPECT DETERIORATING EDUCATION OUTCOMES?

If MORE money didn't result any any improvement in "outcomes" over the past 30 years, then how can a 5% cut result in a deterioration of outcomes? Seems like a ratcheting effect where the public loses no matter what happens.

Why does nobody call them to task and tell them they simply have to accomplish the same things with a little bit less money? It happens all the time in the Real World.

 

[Mad Scientist]

You could increase the Education Budget 50% or cut it 50% and there would still be no difference.

The answer is Competition. Parents should be able to send their kids to whatever school they want.

Imagine if there was only one car company, they'd make shitty cars because they'd know you can't go anywhere else.

 

[Pennywise]

You could increase the Education Budget 50% or cut it 50% and there would still be no difference.

The answer is Competition. Parents should be able to send their kids to whatever school they want.

Imagine if there was only one car company, they'd make shitty cars because they'd know you can't go anywhere else.

YUGO education is what we have. Choose any variety from the one model in our showroom.

 

[ScienceRocks]

I may disagree with the subjects being fed to our children, but without a strong educational system our country is FUCKED. Maybe we should charge our aproach of killing everything with maybe becoming a teacher ourselves and charging things.

 

[regent]

You could increase the Education Budget 50% or cut it 50% and there would still be no difference.

The answer is Competition. Parents should be able to send their kids to whatever school they want.

Imagine if there was only one car company, they'd make shitty cars because they'd know you can't go anywhere else.

There are over 13000 school districts in the US, governed by over 13000 local school boards and supervised by fifty state governments.

 

[Mr. H.]

You could increase the Education Budget 50% or cut it 50% and there would still be no difference.

The answer is Competition. Parents should be able to send their kids to whatever school they want.

Imagine if there was only one car company, they'd make shitty cars because they'd know you can't go anywhere else.

There are over 13000 school districts in the US, governed by over 13000 local school boards and supervised by fifty state governments.

Fifty-seven state governments. Where the hell you go to school bub?

 

[DGS49]

The second-biggest single waste area in the Education Establishment is the dramatic growth of non-teaching positions - counselors, vice principals, consultants, and so on. The problem is that once these positions are created they are impregnable, even if it is later discovered that they serve no purpose or, as is more often the case, they are not worth the cost. In any sane organization, Management would have the opportunity every few years to simply review everyone's usefulness and "clean house." In Government, not so much.

Several years ago a friend of mine was on a local school board when they received a "mandate" from the state that they have a certain number of counselors per student (I think it was drug abuse counselors, but I'm not sure). My friend called the state Department of Education and asked whether these people had to be "dedicated," or they could just add this responsibility (with appropriate training, of course) to existing Counseling staff. They said that no new people were required.

So at the next School Board meeting, he told the assembled Board and citizenry what he had found out, and suggested that they train four of their Guidance Counselors to handle this new mandate. He had also prepared a short PPT presentation, detailing the lifetime cost of newly-hired counselors, should the Board elect to go in that direction. It was in the millions of dollars.

In the ensuing month, the teachers' union mobilized an army of parents to come to the next school board meeting and DEMAND that their CHILDREN not be made to suffer with part-time drug counselors, but that new positions be created.

Of course, they hired four new people, all of whom were unqualified teachers (who, in turn had to be replaced with new hires), and who had to be sent to training at the School Board's expense, so that they could do the job adequately.

And so it goes.

 

[Rikurzhen]

 

[regent]

The second-biggest single waste area in the Education Establishment is the dramatic growth of non-teaching positions - counselors, vice principals, consultants, and so on. The problem is that once these positions are created they are impregnable, even if it is later discovered that they serve no purpose or, as is more often the case, they are not worth the cost. In any sane organization, Management would have the opportunity every few years to simply review everyone's usefulness and "clean house." In Government, not so much.

Several years ago a friend of mine was on a local school board when they received a "mandate" from the state that they have a certain number of counselors per student (I think it was drug abuse counselors, but I'm not sure). My friend called the state Department of Education and asked whether these people had to be "dedicated," or they could just add this responsibility (with appropriate training, of course) to existing Counseling staff. They said that no new people were required.

So at the next School Board meeting, he told the assembled Board and citizenry what he had found out, and suggested that they train four of their Guidance Counselors to handle this new mandate. He had also prepared a short PPT presentation, detailing the lifetime cost of newly-hired counselors, should the Board elect to go in that direction. It was in the millions of dollars.

In the ensuing month, the teachers' union mobilized an army of parents to come to the next school board meeting and DEMAND that their CHILDREN not be made to suffer with part-time drug counselors, but that new positions be created.

Of course, they hired four new people, all of whom were unqualified teachers (who, in turn had to be replaced with new hires), and who had to be sent to training at the School Board's expense, so that they could do the job adequately.

And so it goes.

What would be the reaction if schools turned over all their parenting jobs to the parents? The teachers no longer would have to make sure the little ones have their boots on, or the high schools make sure the kids are taking the right classes to graduate or devoting time to drug counseling and so forth.
I think parents would love having more control and assuming more responsibility? Think of the time and money schools put into those parenting areas.