What's new
US Message Board 🦅 Political Discussion Forum

Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

What is "Fair" Public School Funding?

Seymour Flops

Diamond Member
Joined
Nov 25, 2021
Messages
7,076
Reaction score
5,328
Points
1,938
Location
Texas
Never had a class in that

Have you?
No, I went to school back when real subjects were taught.

I tried out for choir in the third grade and didn't make it. I tried to play the Trumpet in 6th grade and had to quit due to he expression on the band directors face when I tried to play notes. I took art as a high school elective but sucked at it.Did a similar thing happen to you to make you oppose the arts in public school?

Anyway, you can answer the question, if you like, or make it obvious that are afraid to.
 

Admiral Rockwell Tory

Diamond Member
Joined
Nov 1, 2015
Messages
54,118
Reaction score
12,289
Points
2,220
Location
Sitting down in front of my computer
Easy.....the money attaches to the child, whatever they set that at, and the child can go to any public school in the state.....that is the biggest step in fixing public schools.
How are they going to get to those schools? Teleportation? What do you do in school districts that have ONE high school?

There were 17 high schools in my Florida school district. There were about 3 high schools that every student would have loved to attend as they were top notch academically and always ranked at the top of the sports of baseball, football and basketball. Given your 'school choice option", how many students could leave their lower performing schools to attend these high schools?

Exactly zero. Every one of those schools were overcrowded already!
 

frigidweirdo

Diamond Member
Joined
Mar 7, 2014
Messages
40,247
Reaction score
6,620
Points
1,830
I agree that public school should be an equalizer. They once were an equalizer, much more so than they are today. The Democratic policies of turning schools into social engineering centers instead of learning centers brought down the quality of education for all, and their solution is more wokeness, more critical race theory (by whatever name), and less emphasis on reading, writing, math and science.

I believe that funding should be more equal, with the state providing more funds for low-income schools. In heavily Republican Texas, where I live, we have a law called "Recover" AKA "Robin Hood," that allows the state to take money from high-income districts and give it to low income districts.

But money doesn't solve the problem. The largest amount of spending per student is in the Washington DC district, an utter failure. In Texas, the Houston ISD spends much more money per student than the state average (using that Robin Hood money), and it is an utter failure. I teach in a small district outside of Houston that spends about the same as Houston ISD. Not because our students are wealthy, they are mainly low-income, first gen American, with non-English parents. That district has money due to the generous donations, on top of taxes that the local refineries provide. That district is a success, in sports, and in the arts.

It isn't the money. What it important is that the teacher teach the kids to succeed.

If a teacher is reading aloud to high schoolers who cannot read, and reading books that teach them that they are unable to succeed because the system is racist and rigged against them, does it improve that education give that teacher a raise?

If you come out swinging at Republicans, you sound like a Democrat to me. If you want to be the kind of poster that is always on the attack, but never willing to defend anything, you are free to do so. At least until the Democrats mandate that all posts not praising them be deemed "disinformation."

When were schools ever an equalizer? Literally there was slavery, then segregation, then after segregation a lot of places were putting in policies to make sure equality wasn't an issue.

Both Democrats and Republicans have done things to harm the country, social engineering isn't necessarily a problem, perhaps the way Democrats are doing it is wrong. However a society needs tolerance, it needs to educate people to be adults in the USA.

The reality is the USA has a problem, slavery to segregation to "it's not slavery or segregation but it ain't right" which exists now. How are you going to change that if you don't change it in schools?
If you're reinforcing prejudice with every generation, you will never have a more inclusive nation.

No, money doesn't solve the problem. The problems are so embedded within US society, and neither side of the insane political spectrum is willing to lose power by doing the right thing. Power rules in the US, getting that power, keeping that power, that's the only important thing.

Everything else is secondary. Education is secondary. Literally people are being manipulated, not at school with a curriculum that has been well thought out, but by people the Koch brother (apparently said Coke and not Cock, clearly Cock as it's from German) and Soros who have no responsibilities, there's been no discussion about what should be thrown at people.

It's why I hate the word "woke", it's a word that's been pushed by the Koch money to allow right wingers to dismiss anything they don't like as "woke" (and yes the left have their words too).

How do you teach kids to "succeed"? And succeed in what?
Not everyone can succeed. For you to have an Elon Musk, you need successful people to work under him. For you to have a Walton family, you need low wage workers who will work for peanuts.
The reality is "success" can only be achieved by a percentage of the population. Education needs to cater for all types of people and work with the basis that some people will be at the bottom, but being at the bottom doesn't need to be as bad as it is in the US.

So, if I attack Republicans, all you hear is "Democrat"?

A lot of what I write will attack Republicans simply because I'm more likely to converse with Republicans than Democrats. That's because I'm center left and I find intellectually stimulating discussions better than agreeing with people. Democrats are more likely to keep away from and what I say. That's the way it is.

However I will attack Democrats and Republicans alike if what I see is wrong.
 

frigidweirdo

Diamond Member
Joined
Mar 7, 2014
Messages
40,247
Reaction score
6,620
Points
1,830
No, I went to school back when real subjects were taught.

I tried out for choir in the third grade and didn't make it. I tried to play the Trumpet in 6th grade and had to quit due to he expression on the band directors face when I tried to play notes. I took art as a high school elective but sucked at it.Did a similar thing happen to you to make you oppose the arts in public school?

Anyway, you can answer the question, if you like, or make it obvious that are afraid to.

"real subjects"....
I think a real subject would be something that gives kids the skills they need to survive and thrive in society.
History is pointless, Geography is even worse, English seems to be pointless as most people can't even use basic "grammer" or spelling. Math is mostly useless as most people won't use most the Math they get after elementary level.

The reality is modern subjects should be a little more varied.

History should be used to make people look at how to deal with sources, decision making, logic, making decent arguments. The actual History is neither here not there. For example.
 

Thunderbird

Gold Member
Joined
Jun 16, 2010
Messages
4,119
Reaction score
1,101
Points
130
Schools are more segregated because of the way funding works in the US.

And would bad schools close down and better schools open up?

Well, if a school is bad and it closes down, where do they find better staff from? From the school that closed down?
People don't want to work at bad schools. Better teachers go to better paid jobs in better environment. If you create poor environments, by creating ghettos, then you will get ghetto schools.
School choice offers hope and opportunity for many students who live in poverty.


The best way to maintain urban decay is to preserve the government school monopoly. Such schools persist no matter how dismal their performance.
 

Thunderbird

Gold Member
Joined
Jun 16, 2010
Messages
4,119
Reaction score
1,101
Points
130
"real subjects"....
I think a real subject would be something that gives kids the skills they need to survive and thrive in society.
History is pointless, Geography is even worse, English seems to be pointless as most people can't even use basic "grammer" or spelling. Math is mostly useless as most people won't use most the Math they get after elementary level.

The reality is modern subjects should be a little more varied.

History should be used to make people look at how to deal with sources, decision making, logic, making decent arguments. The actual History is neither here not there. For example.
Wow, you just threw out the whole curriculum!

The ability to communicate clearly and precisely in English is a great asset.

Geography provides much highly useful basic knowledge.

Economics and engineering and science, once we get past a basic level, involve a lot of math.
 
Last edited:

2aguy

Diamond Member
Joined
Jul 19, 2014
Messages
102,735
Reaction score
42,432
Points
2,290
How are they going to get to those schools? Teleportation? What do you do in school districts that have ONE high school?

There were 17 high schools in my Florida school district. There were about 3 high schools that every student would have loved to attend as they were top notch academically and always ranked at the top of the sports of baseball, football and basketball. Given your 'school choice option", how many students could leave their lower performing schools to attend these high schools?

Exactly zero. Every one of those schools were overcrowded already!


What you don't understand is that like anything else, when there is demand, the supply will be created........it used to be only the rich had cell phones....now every American has a cell phone....

If you give the money to the student, new schools will open up. Right now, there is a monopoly on schools......so there is limited choice. If the students in an area have money, then people will open up schools to take care of those students.

Until that happens, the parents can work out how to get their kids to other schools...I have a friend who is a school bus driver. They drive for a private religious school, and they drive 40 miles to pick up kids to attend that school. The school provides that bus service...most of the kids who go to that school get financial assistance from the school to attend.

Now imagine if the money is available to attend any school the student wants to go to......they can then get bus rides to that school instead of getting trapped in the democrat party run school they are forced to attend simply because they can't afford to move......
 

2aguy

Diamond Member
Joined
Jul 19, 2014
Messages
102,735
Reaction score
42,432
Points
2,290
When were schools ever an equalizer? Literally there was slavery, then segregation, then after segregation a lot of places were putting in policies to make sure equality wasn't an issue.

Both Democrats and Republicans have done things to harm the country, social engineering isn't necessarily a problem, perhaps the way Democrats are doing it is wrong. However a society needs tolerance, it needs to educate people to be adults in the USA.

The reality is the USA has a problem, slavery to segregation to "it's not slavery or segregation but it ain't right" which exists now. How are you going to change that if you don't change it in schools?
If you're reinforcing prejudice with every generation, you will never have a more inclusive nation.

No, money doesn't solve the problem. The problems are so embedded within US society, and neither side of the insane political spectrum is willing to lose power by doing the right thing. Power rules in the US, getting that power, keeping that power, that's the only important thing.

Everything else is secondary. Education is secondary. Literally people are being manipulated, not at school with a curriculum that has been well thought out, but by people the Koch brother (apparently said Coke and not Cock, clearly Cock as it's from German) and Soros who have no responsibilities, there's been no discussion about what should be thrown at people.

It's why I hate the word "woke", it's a word that's been pushed by the Koch money to allow right wingers to dismiss anything they don't like as "woke" (and yes the left have their words too).

How do you teach kids to "succeed"? And succeed in what?
Not everyone can succeed. For you to have an Elon Musk, you need successful people to work under him. For you to have a Walton family, you need low wage workers who will work for peanuts.
The reality is "success" can only be achieved by a percentage of the population. Education needs to cater for all types of people and work with the basis that some people will be at the bottom, but being at the bottom doesn't need to be as bad as it is in the US.

So, if I attack Republicans, all you hear is "Democrat"?

A lot of what I write will attack Republicans simply because I'm more likely to converse with Republicans than Democrats. That's because I'm center left and I find intellectually stimulating discussions better than agreeing with people. Democrats are more likely to keep away from and what I say. That's the way it is.

However I will attack Democrats and Republicans alike if what I see is wrong.


Slavery and segregation were all supported and defended by the democrat party, who, it just so happens, controls our education system through the teachers unions.
 

frigidweirdo

Diamond Member
Joined
Mar 7, 2014
Messages
40,247
Reaction score
6,620
Points
1,830
School choice offers hope and opportunity for many students who live in poverty.


The best way to maintain urban decay is to preserve the government school monopoly. Such schools persist no matter how dismal their performance.

Does it though?

The reality is if you have a system with good schools, and you put an excellent pupil from the ghetto into that good school, it will benefit them.

However if you put ALL the kids from the ghetto in the good school, it's not a good school any more.

Parents thing choice will allow them to go to better schools. But the better schools won't want their kids. Simple as.

The UK has a government school monopoly much worse than in the US, because home schooling really isn't a thing. You have to send your kid to SCHOOL.

And yet they make it work in the UK. And yes, there is "choice" in the UK, but like I've said before, that "choice" isn't really a choice at all.

The difference in the UK is that the government is less wacky than the state governments of many states in the US. That education is much better run and a two party system with whacked out politics impacts education less.
 

frigidweirdo

Diamond Member
Joined
Mar 7, 2014
Messages
40,247
Reaction score
6,620
Points
1,830
Wow, you just threw out the whole curriculum!

The ability to communicate clearly and precisely in English is a great asset.

Geography provides much highly useful basic knowledge.

Economics and engineering and science, once we get past a basic level, involve a lot of math.

Yes, the ability to communicate clearly and precisely in English is an amazing asset. Have you see the people on this board, people who struggle with basic grammar, spelling, even with a built in spell check???

You think it's working?

Yes, all these subjects provide "highly useful basic knowledge". That's not the point. The point is if your aim is "highly useful basic knowledge" you're pumping out kids without the skills they need to succeed in life. So I know where the 50 states are on a map. I go for a job interview and they ask me what skills I have and I say I can name the 50 states and point them out on a map. Do I get the job? No.

Yes, economics, engineering and other things involve a lot of Math. SOME KIDS need a LOT OF MATH. Other kids don't and never, ever will. I learned all kinds of Math at school and I don't use it, don't remember it, didn't even remember it in the final exam. Waste of my time. I'm not going to be an engineer.

The reality is that we often produce a "one size fits all" education system. We have education that suits the whims of the people who make education happen, the politicians. People who say "I did well under this system, so, we should keep it like this".
I've worked in schools in Austria and they do things a but differently. I worked in a HTL which is a technical school. From the age of 13 these kids went to a technical school, English was based around their needs for the subject they were studying. At the age of 18, they have the skills they need to go out into the world and get a job.

Having Geography and History doesn't get you a job. Doesn't help you have a good marriage. Doesn't help you bring up kids. It just gives you something to talk about.

History when done based on the skills you can get from History will include basic knowledge of History, but the basic knowledge shouldn't be the aim.
 

SweetSue92

Diamond Member
Joined
Jul 18, 2018
Messages
24,907
Reaction score
18,897
Points
2,415
Location
USA
Democretins hate the poor more than they hate Christians, almost.

Their only goal for the poor is to keep them poor and keep them to igorant to know that it is they who are keeping them that way.

All it takes is a little scratch for rightwinger to reveal that he doesn't want HIS taxes to pay for "art and music teachers" even though he previously called cutting the arts a Republican talking point.

Ain't that a kick in the head?

Typical liberal. When it's HIS taxes--whoa nelly. Those Democrat platform planks get torn up and tossed aside one right after another.

Live look at RW:

1669451383501.png
 

SweetSue92

Diamond Member
Joined
Jul 18, 2018
Messages
24,907
Reaction score
18,897
Points
2,415
Location
USA
No, I went to school back when real subjects were taught.

I tried out for choir in the third grade and didn't make it. I tried to play the Trumpet in 6th grade and had to quit due to he expression on the band directors face when I tried to play notes. I took art as a high school elective but sucked at it.Did a similar thing happen to you to make you oppose the arts in public school?

Anyway, you can answer the question, if you like, or make it obvious that are afraid to.

"I tried out for choir in 3rd grade and didn't make it"--NO. Ugh, no. No "audition only" choirs in third grade please. If you want to sing, you're in. It's third grade! However to prove that I'm not of the "participation trophy" generation: I have auditions for solos and select from there. But if children so young want to sing--let them!

And it's obvious to me that rightwinger is afraid to return to this thread after being so exposed to his own terrible trollery
 

Blues Man

Platinum Member
Joined
Aug 28, 2016
Messages
25,368
Reaction score
9,926
Points
490

In Pennsylvania, the bulk of public school funding is raised at the local (school district) level through real estate taxes. A small percentage comes from the Feds, and about 35-40% comes from the State.

Perversities abound. When measuring funding on a per-student basis, the big cities with the (statistically) worst academics get the most money, second come the affluent suburbs with high real estate values, and third come rural districts with the highest real estate tax rates, due to low population density. Academically, the big cities do have various forms of "scholar" programs that facilitate SOME urban students getting an education that rivals a good private school, but as the cancer of DEI attacks them, their excellence is in serious danger.

In parallel with funding issues and issues of "equity" is a general movement in Academe to de-emphasize standardized testing, the results of which perennially embarrass both POC communities and public school teachers as a group. So any attempt to measure whether funding initiatives are succeeding in raising up the "worst" districts and schools is hampered by reluctant to quantitatively measure the academic status quo, over time.

So two questions are begged, so to speak. What if funding were "normalized" throughout the State, with every district spending the same amount per pupil (with an adjustment for the lowest population-density districts)? Would the Leftists consider that "fair," and what would that do to/for educational "outcomes"?

[Nothing].

The second question is, if not per-student spending, what other criterion could be used to give every student in the State school system a reasonably equal education - whatever that means?

[I haven't a clue].

One suspects that Leftist politico's would likely just like to throw more and more money to underperforming districts, while ignoring the fact that it doesn't do any good. But that's just my own prejudices coming out.

Here are some numbers:

So what do you think? What spending principles would result in the "fairest" allocation of funds to the largest number of public school students?
The parents of kids in public schools should pay more than the rest of us. That's fair.
 

SweetSue92

Diamond Member
Joined
Jul 18, 2018
Messages
24,907
Reaction score
18,897
Points
2,415
Location
USA
The parents of kids in public schools should pay more than the rest of us. That's fair.

Should people with cars pay taxes for road infrastructure--and only people with cars? Or pay more?

That's first.

Second, you realize that those children are going to pay your SS and Medicare right? Do you expect an educated population might be better equipped to pay?

I guess if you are not going to take a single dime of SS or Medicare, then fine, you don't have to pay school taxes.
 

Blues Man

Platinum Member
Joined
Aug 28, 2016
Messages
25,368
Reaction score
9,926
Points
490
Should people with cars pay taxes for road infrastructure--and only people with cars? Or pay more?

That's first.

Second, you realize that those children are going to pay your SS and Medicare right? Do you expect an educated population might be better equipped to pay?

I guess if you are not going to take a single dime of SS or Medicare, then fine, you don't have to pay school taxes.
People with cars do pay more for roads via the gas tax. and my SS and medicare are funded the almost 15% of my lifetime income that the government confiscates from me.


The fact is people with children pay less in taxes than people without children despite the fact that they use more government services.

Employers can train employees to do their jobs just as well or better than any public school
 

Care4all

Warrior Princess
Joined
Mar 24, 2007
Messages
65,889
Reaction score
22,373
Points
2,290
Location
Maine

In Pennsylvania, the bulk of public school funding is raised at the local (school district) level through real estate taxes. A small percentage comes from the Feds, and about 35-40% comes from the State.

Perversities abound. When measuring funding on a per-student basis, the big cities with the (statistically) worst academics get the most money, second come the affluent suburbs with high real estate values, and third come rural districts with the highest real estate tax rates, due to low population density. Academically, the big cities do have various forms of "scholar" programs that facilitate SOME urban students getting an education that rivals a good private school, but as the cancer of DEI attacks them, their excellence is in serious danger.

In parallel with funding issues and issues of "equity" is a general movement in Academe to de-emphasize standardized testing, the results of which perennially embarrass both POC communities and public school teachers as a group. So any attempt to measure whether funding initiatives are succeeding in raising up the "worst" districts and schools is hampered by reluctant to quantitatively measure the academic status quo, over time.

So two questions are begged, so to speak. What if funding were "normalized" throughout the State, with every district spending the same amount per pupil (with an adjustment for the lowest population-density districts)? Would the Leftists consider that "fair," and what would that do to/for educational "outcomes"?

[Nothing].

The second question is, if not per-student spending, what other criterion could be used to give every student in the State school system a reasonably equal education - whatever that means?

[I haven't a clue].

One suspects that Leftist politico's would likely just like to throw more and more money to underperforming districts, while ignoring the fact that it doesn't do any good. But that's just my own prejudices coming out.

Here are some numbers:

So what do you think? What spending principles would result in the "fairest" allocation of funds to the largest number of public school students?
Link to most money per student is spent in city/ ghettos...?? The article said it was the LEAST spent per student, not MOST???
 

SweetSue92

Diamond Member
Joined
Jul 18, 2018
Messages
24,907
Reaction score
18,897
Points
2,415
Location
USA
People with cars do pay more for roads via the gas tax. and my SS and medicare are funded the almost 15% of my lifetime income that the government confiscates from me.


The fact is people with children pay less in taxes than people without children despite the fact that they use more government services.

Employers can train employees to do their jobs just as well or better than any public school

You know darn well you're gonna get much more out of SS and Medicare than you ever put in. Who's paying for that? Oh yeah. Other people's kids
 

SweetSue92

Diamond Member
Joined
Jul 18, 2018
Messages
24,907
Reaction score
18,897
Points
2,415
Location
USA
Link to most money per student is spent in city/ ghettos...?? The article said it was the LEAST spent per student, not MOST???

Absolutely true in my state. Detroit Schools highly, HIGHLY funded compared to other districts. Where does the $$ go? Hmmm

 

Blues Man

Platinum Member
Joined
Aug 28, 2016
Messages
25,368
Reaction score
9,926
Points
490
You know darn well you're gonna get much more out of SS and Medicare than you ever put in. Who's paying for that? Oh yeah. Other people's kids
No I'm really not because I took steps to minimize my SS liabilities. And using a corrupt system like SS as an example for why the government should take more of my money isn't a very convincing argument.

The effective ROR on the motet the government confiscates for SS is about 2.8%. My investments over the last 30 years have averaged over 8%
 

💲 Amazon Deals 💲

Forum List

Top